DEDICATION

ToSarah

CONTENTS

DEDICATION

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

INTRODUCTION

1 DivineHumansinAncientGreeceandRome

2 DivineHumansinAncientJudaism

3 DidJesusThinkHeWasGod?

4 TheResurrectionofJesus:WhatWeCannotKnow

5 TheResurrectionofJesus:WhatWeCanKnow

6 TheBeginningofChristology:ChristasExaltedtoHeaven

7 JesusasGodonEarth:EarlyIncarnationChristologies

8 AftertheNewTestament:ChristologicalDeadEndsoftheSecondandThirdCenturies

9 Ortho-ParadoxesontheRoadtoNicea

EPILOGUE:JesusasGod:TheAftermath

NOTES

SCRIPTUREINDEX

SUBJECTANDAUTHORINDEX

ABOUTTHEAUTHOR

ALSOBYBARTD.EHRMAN

CREDITS

COPYRIGHT

ABOUTTHEPUBLISHER

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

IWOULDLIKETOACKNOWLEDGEthescholarswhohaveassistedmebyreadinganearlierdraftofthisbookandprovidingextensiveandhelpfulcomments. Ifeveryonehadsuch insightfulandgenerousfriends and colleagues, the world would be a much happier place. My readers have been MariaDoerfler, a remarkable and wide-ranging scholar just now starting to teach church history as anassistant professor at Duke Divinity School; Joel Marcus, professor of New Testament at DukeDivinitySchool,who fornearly thirtyyearshasgenerously readmyworkandconsistentlyspilledlots of red ink all over it;DaleMartin, professorofNewTestament atYale,myoldest friend andcolleagueinthefield,whosecriticalinsightshaveforverymanyyearshelpedshapemeasascholar;andMichaelPeppard,assistantprofessorofNewTestamentatFordhamUniversity,whomIhaveonlyrecentlycometoknowandwhohaswrittenabook,whichIciteinthecourseofmystudy,thathadasignificanteffectonmythinking.

I also thank the entire crewatHarperOne, especiallyMarkTauber, publisher;ClaudiaBoutote,associatepublisher;JulieBaker,mytalentedandenergeticpublicist;andaboveallRogerFreet,myperceptiveandunusuallyhelpfuleditor,whohashelpedmakethisabetterbook.

Iamdedicatingthebooktomybrilliantandscintillatingwife,SarahBeckwith.Idedicatedanotherbook to her years ago, but since I continuously rededicate my life to her, I think it is time torededicateabooktoher.SheisthemostamazingpersonIknow.

INTRODUCTION

JESUSWASALOWER-CLASSJewishpreacherfromthebackwatersofruralGalileewhowascondemnedfor illegal activities and crucified for crimes against the state. Yet not long after his death, hisfollowerswereclaimingthathewasadivinebeing.Eventuallytheywentevenfurther,declaringthathewas none other thanGod,Lord of heaven and earth.And so the question:Howdid a crucifiedpeasantcometobethoughtofastheLordwhocreatedallthings?HowdidJesusbecomeGod?

Thefullironyofthisquestiondidnotstrikemeuntilrecently,whenIwastakingalongwalkwithoneofmyclosestfriends.Aswetalked,wecoveredanumberoffamiliartopics:bookswehadbeenreading,movieswehadseen,philosophicalviewswewerethinkingabout.Eventuallywegotaroundto talkingabout religion.Unlikeme,my friendcontinues to identifyherself as aChristian.Atonepoint,Iaskedherwhatsheconsideredtobethecoreofherbeliefs.Heranswergavemepause.Shesaidthat,forher,theheartofreligionwastheideathatinJesus,Godhadbecomeaman.

OneofthereasonsIwastakenabackbyherresponsewasthatthisusedtobeoneofmybeliefsaswell—eventhoughithasn’tbeenforyears.Asfarbackashighschool,Ihadponderedlongandhardthis“mysteryoffaith,”asfound,forexample,inJohn1:1–2,14:“IntheBeginningwastheWord,andtheWordwaswithGod,andtheWordwasGod....AndtheWordbecamefleshanddweltamongus,andwe have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.” Even before that, I hadopenlyandwholeheartedlyconfessed theChristological statementsof theNiceneCreed, thatChristwas

theonlySonofGod,eternallybegottenoftheFather,GodfromGod,LightfromLight,trueGodfromtrueGod,begotten,notmade,ofoneBeingwiththeFather.Throughhimallthingsweremade.Forusandforoursalvationhecamedownfromheaven;bythepoweroftheHolySpirithebecameincarnatefromtheVirginMary,andwasmademan.

ButIhadchangedovertheyears,andnowinmiddleageIamnolongerabeliever.Instead,IamahistorianofearlyChristianity,whofornearly threedecadeshasstudiedtheNewTestamentandtheriseoftheChristianreligionfromahistoricalperspective.Andnowmyquestion,insomeways,isthe precise opposite of my friend’s. As a historian I am no longer obsessed with the theologicalquestionofhowGodbecameaman,butwiththehistoricalquestionofhowamanbecameGod.

Thetraditionalanswertothisquestion,ofcourse,isthatJesusinfactwasGod,andsoofcoursehetaughtthathewasGodandwasalwaysbelievedtobeGod.ButalongstreamofhistorianssincethelateeighteenthcenturyhavemaintainedthatthisisnotthecorrectunderstandingofthehistoricalJesus,andtheyhavemarshaledmanyandcompellingargumentsinsupportoftheirposition.Iftheyare right, we are left with the puzzle: How did it happen?Why did Jesus’s early followers startconsideringhimtobeGod?

InthisbookIhavetriedtoapproachthisquestioninawaythatwillbeusefulnotonlyforsecularhistoriansofreligionlikeme,butalsoforbelieverslikemyfriendwhocontinuetothinkthatJesusis,infact,God.Asaresult,IdonottakeastandonthetheologicalquestionofJesus’sdivinestatus.Iam instead interested in the historical development that led to the affirmation that he isGod. Thishistoricaldevelopmentcertainlytranspiredinonewayoranother,andwhatpeoplepersonallybelieveaboutChristshouldnot,intheory,affecttheconclusionstheydrawhistorically.

TheideathatJesusisGodisnotaninventionofmoderntimes,ofcourse.AsIwillshowinmydiscussion,itwastheviewoftheveryearliestChristianssoonafterJesus’sdeath.OneofourdrivingquestionsthroughoutthisstudywillalwaysbewhattheseChristiansmeantbysaying“JesusisGod.”Aswewillsee,differentChristiansmeantdifferentthingsbyit.Moreover,tounderstandthisclaiminanysenseatallwillrequireustoknowwhatpeopleintheancientworldgenerallymeantwhentheythoughtthataparticularhumanwasagod—orthatagodhadbecomeahuman.ThisclaimwasnotuniquetoChristians.EventhoughJesusmaybetheonlymiracle-workingSonofGodthatweknowaboutinourworld,numerouspeopleinantiquity,amongbothpagansandJews,werethoughttohavebeenbothhumananddivine.

Itisimportantalreadyatthisstagetostressafundamental,historicalpointabouthowweimaginethe “divine realm.” By divine realm, I mean that “world” that is inhabited by superhuman, divinebeings—God,or thegods,orothersuperhumanforces.Formostpeople today,divinity isablack-and-whiteissue.AbeingiseitherGodornotGod.Godis“upthere”intheheavenlyrealm,andweare“downhere” in thisrealm.Andthere isanunbridgeablechasmbetweenthese tworealms.Withthiskindofassumptionfirmlyentrenched inour thinking, it isveryhard to imaginehowapersoncouldbebothGodandhumanatonce.

Moreover,whenput in theseblack-and-white terms, it is relativelyeasy to say, as Iused to saybeforedoingtheresearchforthisbook,thattheearlyGospelsofMatthew,Mark,andLuke—inwhichJesusnevermakesexplicitdivineclaimsabouthimself—portrayJesusasahumanbutnotasGod,whereastheGospelofJohn—inwhichJesusdoesmakesuchdivineclaims—doesindeedportrayhimasGod.YetotherscholarsforcefullydisagreewiththisviewandarguethatJesusisportrayedasGodeven in theseearlierGospels.Asa result, therearemanydebatesoverwhatscholarshavecalleda“highChristology,”inwhichJesusisthoughtofasadivinebeing(thisiscalled“high”becauseChristoriginates“upthere,”withGod;thetermChristologyliterallymeans“understandingofChrist”)andwhat they have called a “lowChristology,” inwhich Jesus is thought of as a human being (“low”becauseheoriginates“downhere,”withus).Giventhisperspective,inwhichwayisJesusportrayedintheGospels—asGodorashuman?

WhatIhavecometosee is thatscholarshavesuchdisagreements inpartbecause theytypicallyanswerthequestionofhighorlowChristologyonthebasisoftheparadigmIhavejustdescribed—thatthedivineandhumanrealmsarecategoricallydistinct,withagreatchasmseparatingthetwo.Theproblem is that most ancient people—whether Christian, Jewish, or pagan—did not have thisparadigm.Forthem,thehumanrealmwasnotanabsolutecategoryseparatedfromthedivinerealmby an enormous and unbridgeable crevasse. On the contrary, the human and divine were twocontinuumsthatcould,anddid,overlap.

Intheancientworlditwaspossibletobelieveinanumberofwaysthatahumanwasdivine.Hereare twomajorways it could happen, as attested inChristian, Jewish, and pagan sources (Iwill bediscussingotherwaysinthecourseofthebook):

Byadoptionorexaltation.Ahumanbeing(say,agreatrulerorwarriororholyperson)couldbemadedivinebyanactofGodoragod,bybeingelevatedtoalevelofdivinitythatsheorhedidnotpreviouslyhave.By nature or incarnation.A divine being (say, an angel or one of the gods) could becomehuman,eitherpermanentlyor,morecommonly,temporarily.

OneofmytheseswillbethataChristiantextsuchastheGospelofMarkunderstandsJesusinthefirstway,asahumanwhocametobemadedivine.TheGospelofJohnunderstandshiminthesecondway,asadivinebeingwhobecamehuman.BothofthemseeJesusasdivine,butindifferentways.

Thus,beforediscussingthedifferentearlyChristianviewsofwhatitmeanttocallJesusGod,Isetthestagebyconsideringhowancientpeopleunderstoodtheintersectingrealmsofthedivineandthehuman.InChapter1IdiscusstheviewsthatwerewidelyheldintheGreekandRomanworldsoutsideboth JudaismandChristianity.Therewewill see that indeedakindofcontinuumwithin thedivinerealmallowedsomeoverlapbetweendivinebeingsandhumans—amatterofnosurpriseforreadersfamiliar with ancient mythologies in which the gods became (temporarily) human and humansbecame(permanently)gods.

Somewhatmoresurprisingmaybe thediscussionofChapter2, inwhichIshowthatanalogousunderstandings existed even within the world of ancient Judaism. This will be of particularimportance since Jesus and his earliest followerswere thoroughly Jewish in everyway.And as itturnsout,manyancientJews,too,believednotonlythatdivinebeings(suchasangels)couldbecomehuman,butthathumanbeingscouldbecomedivine.SomehumanswereactuallycalledGod.Thisistruenotonly indocuments fromoutside theBible,butalso—evenmoresurprising—indocumentswithinit.

AfterIhaveestablishedtheviewsofbothpagansandJews,wecanmoveinChapter3toconsiderthelifeofthehistoricalJesus.HeremyfocusisonthequestionofwhetherJesustalkedabouthimselfasGod.Itisadifficultquestiontoanswer,innosmallmeasurebecauseofthesourcesofinformationatourdisposalforknowinganythingatallaboutthelifeandteachingsofJesus.AndsoIbeginthechapterbydiscussing theproblems thatour surviving sources—especially theGospelsof theNewTestament—pose foruswhenwewant toknowhistoricallywhathappenedduringJesus’sministry.Among other things, I show why the majority of critical scholars for more than a century havearguedthatJesusisbestunderstoodasanapocalypticprophetwhopredictedthattheendoftheagewassoontoarrive,whenGodwouldinterveneinhistoryandoverthrowtheforcesofeviltobringinhisgoodkingdom.OncethebasictenorofJesus’spublicministryisset,ImovetoadiscussionoftheeventsthatleduptohiscrucifixionatthehandsoftheRomangovernorofJudea,PontiusPilate.Ateverypointwewillbeintentonouroneleadingquestionforthischapter:HowdidJesusunderstandanddescribehimself?Didhetalkabouthimselfasadivinebeing?Iwillarguethathedidnot.

Thesefirstthreechapterscanbeseenasthebackdroptoourultimateconcern:howJesuscametobeconsideredGod.Theshortansweristhatitallhadtodowithhisfollowers’beliefthathehadbeenraisedfromthedead.

AgreatdealiswrittentodayaboutJesus’sresurrection,bothbyscholarswhoaretruebelieversandapologists,whoarguethathistorianscan“prove”thatJesuswasraised,andbyskepticswhodon’tbelieve it for a second. It is obviously a fundamental issue for our deliberations. If the earlyChristiansdidnotbelievethatJesushadbeenraisedfromthedead,theywouldnothavethoughtthathewasdifferentfromanyotherunfortunateprophetwhoendeduponthewrongsideofthelawand

wasexecutedforhistroubles.ButChristiansdidthinkJesuswasraised,and,asIargue,thatchangedeverything.

Fromahistoricalperspectivethereisanobviousquestion:What,actually,canweknowabouttheresurrection?Hereweenterintohighlycontroversialtopics,someofwhichIhavechangedmymindaboutinthecourseofdoingmyresearchforthisbook.ForyearsIhadthoughtthatwhateverelsewemightthinkaboutthestoriesofJesus’sresurrection,wecouldberelativelycertainthatimmediatelyafterhisdeathhewasgivenadecentburialbyJosephofArimatheaandthatonthethirddaysomeofhis female followers found his tomb empty. I no longer think that these are relatively certainhistoricaldata;onthecontrary,Ithinkbothviews(hisburialandhisemptytomb)areunlikely.Andso, inChapter 4 I dealwithwhat I thinkwe as historians simply cannot know about the traditionssurroundingJesus’sresurrection.

InChapter5IturntowhatIthinkwealmostcertainlycanknow.HereIarguethattheevidenceisunambiguousandcompelling:someofJesus’sdisciplesclaimedthattheysawhimaliveafterhehaddied. But how many of his disciples had these “visions” of Jesus? (I leave open the question ofwhether theyhad thesevisionsbecause Jesus really appeared to themorbecause theywerehavinghallucinations—for reasons I explain in the chapter.)Whendid theyhave them?Andhowdid theyinterpretthem?

Myoverarchingcontentionisthatbeliefintheresurrection—basedonvisionaryexperiences—iswhatinitiallyledthefollowersofJesus(allofthem?someofthem?)tobelievethatJesushadbeenexaltedtoheavenandmadetositattherighthandofGodashisuniqueSon.ThesebeliefswerethefirstChristologies—thefirstunderstandingsthatJesuswasadivinebeing.Iexplorethese“exaltation”viewsofourearliestsurvivingsourcesinChapter6.

In Chapter 7 I move to a different set of Christological views that developed later and thatmaintained that Jesuswas not simply a humanwho had been exalted to the level of divinity, but apreexistentdivinebeingwithGodbeforehecametoearthasahuman.Ishowthekeysimilaritiesanddifferences between this “incarnation” view of Christ (in which he “became flesh”—the literalmeaningofthewordincarnation)withtheearlier“exaltation”Christologies.Moreover,IexplorekeypassagesthatembodyunderstandingsoftheincarnationinsuchbooksastheGospelofJohn,thelastofthecanonicalGospelstobewritten.

InthefollowingchapterswewillseethatChristianslivingaftertheNewTestamentwaswritten—into the second, third, and fourth centuries—developed views of Christ even further, with someChristians taking positions that were eventually denounced as “heresies” (or “false”) and othersasserting views that were accepted as “orthodox” (or “right”). Chapter 8 deals with some of theheretical“deadends”takenbyChristiantheologiansofthesecondandthirdcenturies.Someofthesethinkers claimed that Jesuswas fullyhumanbutnotdivine;others saidhewas fullydivinebutnothuman;yetotherssaidthatJesusChristwasinfacttwobeings,onedivineandtheotherhuman,onlytemporarilyunitedduringJesus’sministry.Alloftheseviewscametobedeclaredas“heresies,”asdidyetotherviewsthatwereputforwardbyChristianleaderswho,ironically,wantednothingmorethantoembraceideasthatwere“orthodox.”

ThedebatesoverthenatureofChristwerenotresolvedbytheendofthethirdcenturybutcametoahead in theearly fourthcenturyafter theconversionof theemperorConstantine to theChristianfaith.By then, the vastmajority ofChristians firmly believed that JesuswasGod, but the questionremained, “inwhat sense?” It is in this early fourth-century context that battleswerewaged in the“Arian controversy,” which I explore in Chapter 9. The controversy is named after Arius, an

influentialChristianteacherofAlexandria,Egypt,whoheldtoa“subordinationist”viewofChrist—thatis,JesuswasGod,buthewasasubordinatedeitywhowasnotatthesamelevelofgloryasGodtheFather;moreover, hehadnot always existedwith theFather.The alternativepoint of viewwasespousedbyArius’sownbishop,Alexander,whomaintainedthatChristwasabeingwhohadalwaysexistedwithGodand that hewas, bynature, equalwithGod.TheultimatedenunciationofArius’sviewledtotheformationoftheNiceneCreed,whichisstillrecitedinchurchestoday.

Finally,intheepilogue,Idealwiththeconsequencesoftheseparticulartheologicaldisputesaftertheywere resolved.OnceChristians far andwide accepted the view that Jesus had been fullyGodfrom eternity, equal with the Father, how did this affect the various disputes Christians had, forexample, with the Romans who had earlier persecuted them and whose emperor had been widelybelieved to be a god?Orwith Jewswhowere now accused not just of killingChrist, but even ofkilling God? Or with one another as debates over the nature of Christ continued apace, withincreasinglygreaternuance,foraverylongtimeindeed?

These later debates are intriguing, and highly significant, in their own right. But my strongcontentionisthattheycannotbeunderstoodwithoutgraspingthehistoryofwhatwentbefore.AndsoinourhistoricalsketchwewillbeparticularlyinterestedinthekeyChristologicalquestionofthemall:HowisitthatthefollowersofJesuscametounderstandhimasdivineinanysenseoftheterm?WhatmadethemthinkthatJesus,thecrucifiedpreacherfromGalilee,wasGod?

CHAPTER1

DivineHumansinAncientGreeceandRome

WHEN I TEACH MY introductory course on the New Testament, I tell my students that it is verydifficulttoknowwheretobeginourexploration.IsitbesttostartwithourearliestauthoroftheNewTestament, the Apostle Paul, who wrote more of the books of the New Testament than any otherauthor?OrisitbesttostartwiththeGospels,which,whilewrittenafterPaul,discussthelifeofJesus,who lived before Paulwrote his letters? In the end I tell them that probably it is best to begin bytelling thestoryofahighlyunusualmanwhowasborn in the firstcentury ina remotepartof theRomanempire,whoselifewasdescribedbyhislaterfollowersasaltogethermiraculous.1

OneRemarkableLifeBEFOREHEWASBORN,hismotherhadavisitorfromheavenwhotoldherthathersonwouldnotbeameremortalbut in factwouldbedivine.Hisbirthwasaccompaniedbyunusualdivinesigns in theheavens.As an adult he left his home to engage on an itinerant preachingministry.Hewent fromvillagetotown,tellingallwhowouldlistenthattheyshouldnotbeconcernedabouttheirearthlylivesandtheirmaterialgoods;theyshouldliveforwhatwasspiritualandeternal.Hegatheredanumberoffollowersaroundhimwhobecameconvincedthathewasnoordinaryhuman,butthathewastheSonofGod.Andhedidmiraclestoconfirmthemintheirbeliefs:hecouldhealthesick,castoutdemons,andraisethedead.AttheendofhislifehearousedoppositionamongtherulingauthoritiesofRomeandwasputontrial.Buttheycouldnotkillhissoul.Heascendedtoheavenandcontinuestolivetheretillthisday.Toprovethathelivedonafterleavingthisearthlyorb,heappearedagaintoatleastoneofhis doubting followers,whobecameconvinced that in fact he remainswithus evennow.Later,someofhisfollowerswrotebooksabouthim,andwecanstillreadabouthimtoday.Butveryfewofyouwillhaveever seen thesebooks.And I imaginemostofyoudonotevenknowwho thisgreatmiracle-workingSonofGodwas.IhavebeenreferringtoamannamedApollonius,whocamefromthetownofTyana.Hewasapagan—thatis,apolytheisticworshiperofthemanyRomangods—andarenownedphilosopherofhisday.His followers thoughthewas immortal.WehaveabookwrittenabouthimbyhislaterdevoteePhilostratus.

Philostratus’sbookwaswrittenineightvolumesintheearlythirdcentury,possiblyaround220or230CE.He had done considerable research for his book, and his stories, he tells us,were largelybasedontheaccountsrecordedbyaneyewitnessandcompanionofApolloniushimself.Apolloniuslived some years after a similar miracle-working Son of God in a different remote part of theempire,JesusofNazareth.Laterfollowersofthesetwodivinemensawthemasbeingincompetitionwithoneanother.Thiscompetitionwaspartofabiggerstruggleatthetimebetweenpaganism—theformsofreligionsupportedbythevastmajorityofeveryonewholivedinantiquity,whoembracedavarietyofpolytheisticreligions—andChristianity,anewcomeronthereligiousscene,whichinsistedthattherewasonlyoneGodandthatJesuswashisSon.ChristianfollowersofJesuswhoknewabout

Apollonius maintained that he was a charlatan and a fraud; in response, the pagan followers ofApollonius asserted that Jesus was the charlatan and fraud. Both groups could point to theauthoritativewrittenaccountsoftheirleader ’slifetoscoretheirdebatingpoints.

TheHistoricalandLegendaryApolloniusScholarshavehad to investigate theGospelsof theNewTestamentwithacriticaleye todeterminewhichstories,andwhichpartsofstories,arehistoricallyaccuratewithrespecttothehistoricalJesus,and which represent later embellishments by his devoted followers. In a similar way, scholars ofancient Roman religion have had to analyze the writings of Philostratus with a keen sense ofskepticisminordertoweedthroughthelaterlegendaryaccretionstouncoverwhatwecansayaboutthe historicalApollonius.Generally it is agreed that hewas a Pythagorean philosopher—that is, aproponentof theviewsof the fifth-centuryBCEGreekphilosopherPythagoras.He livedduring thesecond half of the first century (Jesus lived during the first half).Apollonius traveled through theeasternpartsoftheRomanempireasamoralandreligiouspreacher.Heoftenlivedintemplesandwasfreewithhisadvicetoreligiousandcityofficials.Hehadnumerouspupilsandwaswellreceivedamongmany of the Roman elite in the places where he stayed. He was especially concerned thatpeopleabandontheirrampantmaterialismandliveforwhatmattered,thatis,theaffairsofthesoul.

Forthecurrentstudy,whatismoreimportantthanthelifeofthehistoricalApolloniusisthesetoflegendsthatsprangupabouthimandthatwerewidelybelievedamongpeopleofthetime.Hisgreatphilosophical insights eventually led many people to assume that he could not have been a meremortal,butthathewashimselfagodstridingtheearth.Justoveracenturyafterhisdeath,Apolloniuswas awarded a holy shrine in his home city of Tyana, dedicated by none other than the RomanemperorCaracalla,whoruledfrom198to217CE.WearetoldthattheemperorAlexanderSeverus(222–235CE) kept an image of Apollonius among his various household gods. And the emperorAurelian(270–275CE),anardentworshiperoftheSunGod,alsoreveredhimasdivine.

The story of Apollonius’s birth, as recounted in Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius of Tyana, isparticularly worth our consideration. The “annunciation” story is both like and unlike the storyearlierfoundintheGospelofLuke(1:26–38).WhenApollonius’smotherwaspregnantwithhim,shehad a vision of a divine being, the Egyptian god named Proteus, renowned for his greatwisdom.When she asked who her child would be, the god answered, “Myself.” The birth was similarlymiraculous.Themotherwastoldtogowithherservantgirlsintoafield,whereshefellasleeponthegrass,onlytoawaketothesoundofswansflappingtheirwings.Sheprematurelythengavebirth.Thelocalpeoplesaid thataboltof lightningappeared in theskyat just thatmoment,and justas itwasabouttostriketheearth,it“hungpoisedintheairandthendisappearedupwards”(LifeofApollonius1.5).Thepeopleconcluded:“Nodoubtthegodsweregivingasignalandanomenofhisbrilliance,hisexaltationaboveearthlythings,hisclosenesstoheaven,andalltheMaster ’sotherqualities”(1.5).Thissign isobviouslydifferentfromastar that ledagroupofwisementoachild,but it is in thesamecelestialballpark.ThelocalpeopleconcludedthatApolloniuswas,infact,theSonofZeus.

At the end of his life Apollonius was brought up on charges before the emperor Domitian.Amongotherthings,hewasaccusedofreceivingtheworshipthatisdueonlytothegods.Again,theparallelstothestoryofJesusarepatent:hetoowasbroughtbeforeofficials(inhiscase,theleadersof theJewsand then theRomangovernorPilate)andwassaid tohaveentertainedexaltedviewsofhimself, calling himself theSon ofGod and the king of the Jews. In both cases the officialswerepersuadedthattheseclaimsofself-exaltationwereathreattothewell-beingofthestate,andforboth

men,readerswereassuredthatinfacttheseself-claimswerecompletelyjustified.PhilostratusindicatesthatthereweredifferentreportsofApollonius’s“death.”Inoneversionhe

issaidtohavediedontheislandofCrete.Hehadallegedlygonetoasanctuarydedicatedtoalocalgod thatwasguardedby agroupof viciouswatchdogs.But rather than raising a ruckus, thedogsgreetedApollonius inafriendlymanner.Thesanctuaryofficialsdiscoveredhimandplacedhiminchains,thinkinghemusthaveusedsorcerytogetbythedogs.ButatmidnightApolloniussethimselffree,callingtothejailerstowatchwhatwastohappennext.Heranuptothedoorsofthesanctuary,whichflewopenoftheirownaccord.Hethenenteredthesanctuary,thedoorsshutbythemselves,andfrominsidethe(otherwiseempty)sanctuarywereheardthevoicesofgirlssinging:“Proceedfromearth!Proceedtoheaven!Proceed!”Apolloniuswasbeingtold,inotherwords,toascendtotherealmofthegods.Heevidentlydidso,ashewasnomoretobefoundonearth.Hereagain,theparallelstothe stories of Jesus are clear: at the endof his life Jesus caused a disturbance in a temple, hewasarrestedandbroughtuponcharges,andafterleavingthisearthlyrealmheascendedtoheaven,wherehecontinuestolive.

AsaphilosopherApollonius taught that thehumansoul is immortal; the fleshmaydie,but thepersonliveson.Noteveryonebelievedhim.Butafterhedepartedtoheavenheappearedinavisiontoafollowerwhodoubtedhim.Apolloniusconvincedthisfollowerthathewasstillaliveandwasstillpresent among them. Jesus too, of course, appeared to his disciples after his resurrection andconvincedthem,includingdoubtingThomas,ofhisongoingrealityandlifeinheaven.

ApolloniusandJesusModern scholars have debated the significance of the obvious connections between Jesus andApollonius,butitisnotmerelyarecentdebate.IntheearlyfourthcenturyCE,apaganauthornamedHierocleswrote a book calledThe Lover of Truth that contained a comparison between these twoallegedSonsofGodandcelebratedthesuperiorityofthepaganversion.Wenolongerhavethebookin its entirety. But some years after it was written, it was explicitly refuted in the writings of thefourth-centurychurchfatherEusebius—sometimesknownasthe“fatherofchurchhistory”becausehewasthefirsttoproduceahistoryofChristianityfromthetimeofJesusuptohisownday.AnotherofEusebius’sbookswasdirectedagainstHieroclesandhiscelebrationofApollonius.Luckilyforuslatter-dayreaders,Eusebiusquotesinplacestheactualwordsofhisopponent.Neartheoutsetofhisbook,forexample,Hierocleswrote:

In their anxiety to exalt Jesus, they run up and down prating of how hemade the blind to see andworked certain othermiraclesofthekind....Letusnote,however,howmuchbetterandmoresensibleistheviewwhichwetakeofsuchmatters,and explain the conceptionwhichwe entertain ofmen giftedwith remarkable powers. . . .During the reign ofNero thereflourishedApolloniusofTyana...[who]workedanynumberofmiracles,ofwhichIwillomitthegreaternumberandonlymentionafew.(LifeofApollonius2)2

Hierocles mocks the Gospels of the New Testament, as they contain tales of Jesus that were“vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind—menwhowere liars and devoid ofeducationandwizards.”ReportsaboutApollonius,ontheotherhand,werewrittenbyhighlyeducatedauthors(notlower-classpeasants)andeyewitnessestothethingstheysaw.Becauseofhismagnificentlife,andthemannerofhis“death”—as“hewenttoheaveninhisphysicalbodyaccompaniedbythegods”—“we must surely class the man among the gods.” The Christian Eusebius’s response wasdirect and vitriolic. Apollonius was not divine, but evil; he was not a son of God, but a man

empoweredbyademon.Ifthislittledebateislookedatfromahistoricalperspective,therecanbelittledoubtthatEusebius

ended upwinning.But thatwould not have been a foregone conclusionwhenHierocleswrote hisbook,beforeChristianityhadbecomemorepowerful.ApolloniusandJesuswereseenascompetitorsfor divine honors: one a paganworshiper ofmanygods, the other a Jewishworshiper of the oneGod;oneapromoterofpaganphilosophy, theother the founderof theChristian religion.Bothofthemwere declared to beGod on earth, even though they bothwere also, obviously, human. In asense,theywerethoughtofasdivinemen.3

Whatisstrikingisthat theywerenottheonlytwo.EventhoughJesusmaybetheonlymiracle-workingSonofGodthatpeopleknowabouttoday,therewerelotsofpeoplelikethisintheancientworld.Weshouldnot thinkofJesusas“unique,” ifby that termwemean thathewas theonlyone“likethat”—thatis,ahumanwhowasfaraboveandverydifferentfromtherestofusmeremortals,amanwhowasalso insomesensedivine.Therewerenumerousdivinehumans inantiquity.Aswillbecomeclear,I’mnotdealingwithwhetherornottheywerereallydivine;I’msayingthat’showtheywereunderstood.RecognizinghowthiscouldbesoisthefirststepinseeinghowJesuscametobethoughtof in these terms.Butaswewill see, Jesuswasnotoriginally thoughtof in thisway—anymorethanApolloniuswasduringhislifetime.ItwasonlyafterhisdeaththatthemanJesuscametobethoughtofasGodonearth.Howdidthathappen?Theplacetostartiswithanunderstandingofhowotherhumanscametobeconsidereddivineintheancientworld.

ThreeModelsoftheDivineHumanCHRISTIANITYAROSEINTHERomanempireimmediatelyafterthedeathofJesusaroundtheyear30CE.The eastern half of the empire was thoroughly infused with Greek culture—so much so that thecommonlanguageoftheeasternempire,thelanguageinfactinwhichtheentireNewTestamentwaswritten,wasGreek.AndsotounderstandtheviewsoftheearlyChristiansweneedtosituatethemintheirhistoricalandculturalcontexts,whichmeansintheGreekandRomanworlds.Jewsofthetimehadmanydistinctiveviewsoftheirown(seethenextchapter),butinmanykeyrespectsofconcernfor our study, they shared (in their own ways) many of the views of their Roman friends andneighbors. This is important to know because Jesus himself was a Jew, as were his immediatefollowers—includingtheoneswhofirstproclaimedthathewasnotameremortal,butwasactuallyGod.

ButhowwasitpossibleforGod,oragod,tobecome,ortoappeartobecome,ahuman?WehaveseenonewaywithApolloniusofTyana.Inhiscase,hismotherwastoldbeforehisbirththathewouldbetheincarnation—the“comingintheflesh”—ofapreexistentdivinebeing,thegodProteus.Thisisverysimilar tolater theological interpretationofJesus—thathewasGodwhobecameincarnatebybeingbornofhismotherMary.Idon’tknowofanyothercasesinancientGreekorRomanthoughtof this kind of “god-man,”where an already existing divine being is said to be born of amortalwoman.But there are other conceptions that are close to this view, and herewe consider three ofthem.

GodsWhoTemporarilyBecomeHumanOneofthegreatestRomanpoetswasOvid,anoldercontemporaryofJesus(hisdates:43BCE–17CE).

His most famous work is his fifteen-volume Metamorphoses, which celebrates changes ortransformationsdescribedinancientmythology.Sometimesthesechangesinvolvegodswhotakeonhumanforminordertointeract,foratime,withmortals.

One of the most intriguing tales found in Ovid involves two elderly peasants, Philemon andBaucis,wholiveinPhrygia(aregionofwhatisnowTurkey).Inthisshortaccount,thegodsJupiterandMercuryaretravelingintheregiondisguisedasmortals.Despitecomingtoathousandhomes,theycanfindnoonewhowilltakethemintogivethemamealandallowthemtorest.TheyfinallyhappenuponthepoorcottageofPhilemonandBaucis,whobeartheirpovertywell,“thinkingitnoshame.”Theelderlycouplebidthevisitorswelcome,invitethemintotheirpoorhome,prepareforthemthebestmealtheycan,andbathetheirwearyfeetwithwarmwater.Inresponse,thegratefulgodsensurethatthewinebowlisneverempty;asmuchastheyalldrink,itremainsfull.

Then thegodsmake theirannouncement:“We twoaregods.”4 In response to their treatment inPhrygia,thegodsdeclare:

ThiswickedneighborhoodshallpayJustpunishment;buttoyouthereshallbegivenExemptionfromthisevil.

Jupiterasksthecouplewhattheymostdesire.Aftertheytalkitover,Philemontellsthekingofthegodsthatheandhiswifewanttobemadepriestswhowillguardthegods’shrine,andwhenitistimeforthemtodie,theywanttodietogether:

Sinceinconcordwehavespentouryears,Grantthattheselfsamehourmaytakeusboth,ThatImyconsort’stombmayneversee,Normayitfalltohertoburyme.

Jupitergrantstheirwishes.Theneighborhoodisdestroyed.Theshrineappears,andPhilemonandBaucisbecomeitsguardians.Whenitcomestimeforthemtodie,thetwoaresimultaneouslyturnedintotwotreesthatgrowfromonetrunk,sothatjustastheyhadlongharmoniouslivesasacouple,sotheyarejoinedindeath.Laterworshipersat theshrinenotonlyacknowledgetheongoing“life”ofthepair,buttheyalsobelievethatthetwohaveineffectbeendivinizedanddeservetobeworshiped:

Theynowaregods,whoservedtheGods;Tothemwhoworshipgaveisworshipgiven.

Thisbeautifulandmoving taleof love in lifeanddeath isalsoa taleofgodswho temporarilybecome—orappeartobecome—human,andhumanswhobecomegods.WhenPhilemonandBaucisareworshipedasgods,itisnotbecausetheyarenowasmightyasgreatJupiterandMercury.Theyarethoughtofasverylow-leveldivinities,mortalswhohavebeenelevatedtothedivineplane.Butdivinetheyare.Thisisakeyandimportantlessonforus.Divinitycameinmanyshapesandsizes;thedivinerealmhadmanylevels.

Today,wethinkoftherealmofdivinity,therealmofGod,ascompletelyOtherandseparatefromourhumanrealm.Godisupthereinheaven,wearedownhereonearth,andthereisaninfinitegulfbetweenus.Butmost ancientpeopledidnot see thedivineandearthly realms thisway.Thedivine

realmhadnumerousstrata.Somegodsweregreater,onemightsay“moredivine,”thanothers,andhumanssometimescouldbeelevatedtotheranksofthosegods.Moreover,thegodsthemselvescouldandoccasionallydidcomedowntospendtimewithusmeremortals.Whentheydidso,itcouldleadtointerestingorevendisastrousconsequences,astheinhospitableinhabitantsofPhrygialearnedtotheirgreatdiscomfort.

Thelessonwasnotlostonlaterinhabitantsoftheregion,aswelearnfromthepagesoftheNewTestamentitself.InthebookofActswehaveanaccountoftheApostlePaulonamissionaryjourneywithhis companionBarnabas in this same region, visiting the townofLystra (Acts 14:8–18).Paulseesamanwhoiscrippled,andthroughthepowerofGodhehealshim.Thecrowdswhohaveseenthismiracledrawwhat for themis thenaturalconclusion:“Thegodshavecomedowntous in thelikenessofmen”(Acts14:11).ItisstrikingthattheycallBarnabasZeusandPaul—theonewhohasbeen doing all the talking—Hermes. These identifications are no accident. Zeus was the GreekcounterpartoftheRomanJupiter,andHermeswasthecounterpartofMercury.ThepeopleinLystraknowthetaleofPhilemonandBaucisandthinkthatthetwogodshaveappearedonceagainintheirmidst.SoconvincedaretheyofthisthatthelocalpriestofZeusbringsoutoxenandgarlandstooffersacrificestothetwoapostles,whohaveaverydifficulttimepersuadingeveryonethattheyareonlyhuman, “of like nature with you.” Paul uses the occasion, as was his wont, to preach his gospelmessageinordertoconvertthepeople.Evenso,noteveryonewasconvinced:“Withthesewordstheyscarcelyrestrainedthepeoplefromofferingsacrificetothem”(14:18).

It is no wonder these worshipers of Zeus at Lystra were so eager to recognize that the godstemporarily become human among them; they rememberedwellwhat happened another time theyrefusedtoofferworshipwhereworshipwasdue.WhetherthestoryinActsisahistoricalrecollectionofPaul’smissionaryactivitiesorsimplyanintriguinglegendthatsprangupinlatertimes(likethestoryofPhilemonandBaucisitself)isimmaterialforourconsiderationhere:intheRomanworlditwaswidelythoughtthatgodscouldtakeonhumanguise,suchthatsomeofthepeopleonemightmeetonoccasionmaywellindeedbedivine.TheancientGreekandRomanmythologiesarefullofsuchstories.

DivineBeingsBornofaGodandaMortalEventhoughApolloniuswasunderstood tobeapreexistentgodcomein theflesh, thiswasnot thenormalGreekorRomanwayofunderstandinghowadivinehumancouldbebornofamortal.Byfarthemorecommonviewwasthatadivinebeingcameintotheworld—nothavingexistedbeforebirth—becauseagodhadsexwithahuman,and theoffspring thenwas in somesensedivine. InGreekmyths itwasZeuswhomost frequently engaged in thesemorallydubious activities, comingdownfromheavenandhavinga ratherexotic sexualencounterwithanattractivewomanhehad tohave,whichledtoahighlyunusualpregnancy.ButtalesofZeusandhismortalloverswerenotsimplyamatterofentertainingmythology.Sometimessuchtalesweretoldofactualhistoricalfigures,suchasAlexandertheGreat(356–323BCE).

Accordingtohislaterbiographer,theGreekscholarPlutarch,whosebookonfamousGreekandRomanmenprovidesuswithbiographiesofmanyofthegreatestfiguresofthetime,manypeoplebelieved thatAlexanderwasoneofZeus’soffspring.Alexander ’sactual fatherwas thefamousandpowerful Philip, king of Macedonia, who had fallen in love with a woman named Olympias.According to Plutarch, the night before the two were to consummate their marriage, Olympiasdreamedthatathunderboltcamedownfromheavenandenteredher.Presumably,thiswasZeusdoing

hismagic. Philip, in themeantime, apparently looked in on his wife that night and saw a serpentengagedinconjugalembracewithher.AsPlutarchindicates,andasonemightunderstand,thissightverymuchcooledPhilip’spassionforhisbride. Inancient timesZeuswasoftenrepresented in theformofasnake,andso,forthosewhobelievedthistale,thechild—Alexander—wasnomeremortal.Hewasthesonofagod.

InmythologywehaveevenmorestrikingaccountsofZeus,orhisRomancounterpart, Jupiter,engaging in such nocturnal activities. No story is more intriguing than the tale of the birth ofHercules.The tale takesmany forms in antiquity, but perhaps themostmemorable is thehilariousrecountingfoundamongtheplaysoftheRomancomicplaywrightPlautus,inhisworkAmphytrion.Theplayisnamedafteroneofthemaincharacters,amilitarygeneralofThebeswhoismarriedtoanextraordinarily beautiful woman named Alcmena. Amphytrion has gone away to war, leaving hispregnantwifeathome.Jupitercastshislustfulgazeuponherfromheavenanddecidesthathehastohaveher.Andheknowsjusthowtodoit.

Jupiterdisguiseshimself asAmphytrionand tellsAlcmena thathehas comehome frombattle.Shewelcomes himwith open arms and takes him to bed. Somuch does Jupiter enjoy the ensuingactivitiesthatheorderstheconstellationstostopintheircircuit.Inotherwords,hemakestimestandstill until he—even he, the mighty god with divine capacity for enjoyment—has his fill. Theconstellationsresumetheirmotion,Jupiterreturnstohisheavenlyhome,andAlcmenaisobviouslywornoutfromtheverylongfrolic.

As it turns out, the real Amphytrion returns home that morning. And he is more than a littlesurprisedanddismayedtofindthathiswifedoesnotwelcomehimwithall theenthusiasmthatonemight expect after such an extended absence. From her perspective, of course, this is completelyunderstandable:shethinksthatshehasjustspentaverylongnightinherhusband’sarms.Bethatasitmay, there is an interesting gestational result of this episode. Alcmena had already been madepregnantbyAmphytrion.ButshebecomespregnantyetagainbyJupiter(someofthesemythologicaltaleswerenotstrongonanatomyorbiology).5Theresult is thatshebears twins.Oneis thedivineHercules,thesonofJupiter;theotherishistwinbrother,amortal,Iphicles.

ThetaleofAmphytrionandAlcmena,ofcourse,isamyth,anditisnotclearthatanyoneactually“believed” it. Itwas insteadagreat story.Still, the ideabehind it—thatamortalwomancouldgivebirthtoachildspawnedbyagod—wasplausibletomanypeopleoftheancientworld.Itwouldnotbeunusualforthemtothinkthatsomeofthegreatbeingswhostridetheearth—greatconquerorslikeAlexander,forexample,orevengreatphilosopherswithsuperhumanwisdomsuchasPlato6—maywellhavebeenconceivedinwaysdifferentfromusmeremortals.Theymayhavehadadivineparentsothattheythemselveswere,insomesense,divine.

IshouldstressthatwhenAlcmenagavebirthtoHercules,thesonofJupiter,itwasnotaninstanceofavirginbirth.Quitethecontrary.Shehadalreadyhadsexwithherhusband,andshehadwhatyoumightcalldivinesexwithJupiter.Innoneofthestoriesofthedivinehumansbornfromtheunionofagodandamortalisthemortalavirgin.ThisisoneofthewaysthattheChristianstoriesofJesusdifferfromthoseofotherdivinehumansintheancientworld.Itistruethat(theJewish)Godistheone who makes Jesus’s mother Mary pregnant through the Holy Spirit (see Luke 1:35). But themonotheisticChristianshadfar tooanexaltedviewofGodto thinkthathecouldhavetemporarilybecomehumantoplayouthissexualfantasies.ThegodsoftheGreeksandRomansmayhavedonesuchthings,buttheGodofIsraelwasaboveitall.

AHumanWhoBecomesDivineThe third model of understanding divine humans in Greek and Roman circles provided themostimportantconceptual framework that theearliestChristianshadforconceivinghowJesuscouldbebothhumananddivine.It isnotaviewabouthowadivinebeingcouldbecomehuman—throughatemporaryincarnationorasexualact—butabouthowahumanbeingcouldbecomedivine.Asitturnsout,thisallegedlyhappenednumeroustimesinGreekandRomanantiquity.

RomulusOne of the most striking examples involves the legendary founder of Rome, Romulus. We haveseveralaccountsofthelifeofRomulus,includingoneproducedbyagreatearlyhistorianofRome,Livy (59CE–17CE),who in one place states the opinion thatRomuluswas a “god born of a god”(HistoryofRome1.16).TheeventthatmostinterestsusinvolvestheendofRomulus’slife.

Therewere,tobesure,rumorsofdivineinvolvementinRomulus’sconception.HismotherwasaVestalVirgin,asacredofficethatrequired—asthenameindicates—awomantoabstainfromsexualrelations.But shebecamepregnant.Obviously, somethingwentwrongwithhervows.Sheclaimedthat the godMarswas responsible, and possibly some people believed her. If so, it simply showsagainhowadivine-humanunioncouldbetakentoexplaintheappearanceofremarkablehumansonearth.

ButitwasRomulus’sdisappearancefromlifethatwasevenmoreastonishing.AccordingtoLivy,by theendofRomulus’s lifeRomehadbeenestablished, theRomangovernmenthadbeen formedwith theSenate inplace andRomulus asking, the armywas fully functioning, andeverythingwaswellpositionedforthebeginningsofthegreatestcityinhistory.Duringthefinalepisodeofhislife,Romulus had gathered with members of the Senate to review the military troops at the CampusMartius.Suddenlyahugethunderstormarose.Aftermajorclapsofthunder,Romuluswasenvelopedbyfog.Whenthefoglifted,hewasnowheretobeseen.

Asitturnsout,tworeportscirculatedabouthisdeath.Oneofthem—theonethatapparentlyLivyand presumablymost other skeptical observers believed—indicated that the senators had taken theopportunityof themoment toget ridof adespot: theyhad tornRomulus to shreds andhiddenhisremains. The other report, which the masses believed, was one that the senators themselvespropagated—thatRomulus “hadbeen caught up onhigh in the blast.” In otherwords, he hadbeentakenup toheaven to livewith thegods.TheresultwasasuddenacclamationofRomulus’sdivinestatus:“Then,whenafewmenhadtakentheinitiative,theyallwithoneaccordhailedRomulusasagodandagod’sson,thekingandFatheroftheRomanCity,andwithprayersbesoughthisfavorthathewouldgraciouslybepleasedforevertoprotecthischildren”(HistoryofRome1.16).7

Herewehaveaviewofdivinehumansinanutshell:ahumancanbehonoredbythegodsbybeingmadeoneofthem;thishappensbecauseoftheperson’sgreatmerit;asadivinity,thepersondeservesworship;andinhisroleasagod,hecanprotectthosewhobringtohimtheirsupplications.

ItisinterestingthatLivyreportsthattheascensionofRomuluswaslaterverifiedbyamannamedProculus Julius,whodeclared to the assemblyof theRomanpeople thatRomulushad appeared tohimaliveafterhisdeath.Heisrecordedassayingthat“theFatherofthisCity,Romulus,descendedsuddenly from the sky at dawn thismorning and appeared tome.Coveredwith confusion I stoodreverentlybeforehim....‘Go,’hesaid,‘anddeclaretothecapitaloftheworld;soletthemcherishtheartofwar,andlet themknowandteachtheirchildren thatnohumanstrengthcanresistRomanarms.’Sosaying...Romulusdepartedonhigh”(HistoryofRome1.16).

RomansheartilyandenthusiasticallyembracedthedivinityofthemanRomulus.Atrioofgods—Jupiter,Mars, andQuirinus—livedat theheartofancientRome,on theancienthill, theCapitoline.Originally, Quirinus may have been a god worshiped among one of the groups of people, theSabines,whowere incorporated into theRomanstateearly in itshistory.Butby the timeofLivy’swriting, Quirinus was understood to be the divinized Romulus, worshiped right up there with thegreatfatherofthegodshimself.

JuliusCaesarThe traditional date for the foundingofRome is 753BCE. Ifwemove the calendar forward aboutsevencenturies,westill findmenwhoareproclaimedtohavebecomegods.FewarebetterknownthanJuliusCaesar,theself-declareddictatorofRomewhowasassassinatedontheIdesofMarch,44BCE,bypoliticalenemieswhopreferrednothavingadictatorwhenallwassaidanddone.TheRomanbiographerSuetoniusprovidedalifeofJuliusCaesarinhisLivesoftheCaesars,publishedin115CE.AccordingtoSuetonius,alreadyduringhislifetimeCaesarhaddeclaredthathehadadivineheritage.InafuneralorationhedeliveredforhisaunthestatedthatonesideofhisfamilydescendedfromtheancientRomankings—throughthelegendaryMarcusAncius,thefourthkingofRome—andtheothersidedescendedfromthegods.Hisfamilyline,infact,couldbetracedbacktothegoddessVenus.

AtCaesar ’sdeathaviciouspowerstruggleensuedbetweenhisenemiesandsupporters,thelatterincluding Mark Antony (of Antony and Cleopatra fame) in league with Caesar ’s adopted sonOctavian,wholaterbecameCaesarAugustus.AtCaesar ’sfuneral,Antonydecidednottodeliverthecustomaryfuneraryoration.Instead,hehadaheraldcryouttheSenate’sdecision“torenderCaesarall honors, both human and divine.” In effect, Julius Caesar was voted into divinity by the rulingauthorities.Thisisaprocessknownasdeification—therecognitionthat,inthisinstance,apersonhadbeensogreatthathehadbeentakenupatdeathintotheranksofthegods.The“commonpeople”andeventheheavensseemedtosupportCaesar ’sdeification,asSuetoniustellsus:“[Caesar]diedinthefifty-sixthyearofhislifeandwasincludedintheranksofthegods,notonlybyformaldecreebutalsoby theconvictionof thecommonpeople. Indeedat the firstgameswhichweregivenafterhisdeificationbyhisheirAugustus,acometshone,appearingaroundtheeleventhhourforsevendaysinsuccession, and itwas believed to be the soul ofCaesarwhohadbeen received into heaven” (TheDeifiedJuliusCaesar88).8

Looking at thematter from a purely human and political point of view, there is little questionaboutwhytheheirandadoptedsonOctavianwantedtheRomanpeopletoagreethatCaesarwasnotonlydescendedfromadivineline,buthadhimselfbeenmadeadivinebeing.IfJuliusCaesarwasagod,whatwouldthatmakehisson?AsNewTestamentscholarMichaelPeppardhasrecentlypointedout,toourknowledgeonlytwopeopleintheancientworldwereactuallycalled“SonofGod.”Otherpeoplewere,tobesure,namedaftertheirdivinefathers:sonofZeus,sonofApollo,andsoon.Butonly two people known by namewere also called “Son ofGod.”Onewas theRoman emperor—startingwithOctavian,orCaesarAugustus—andtheotherwasJesus.Thisisprobablynotanaccident.WhenJesuscameonthesceneasadivineman,heandtheemperorwereincompetition.

CaesarAugustusJuliusCaesarmayhavebeenconsideredagodafterhedied,buthisadoptedsonOctavian(emperorfrom27BCEto14CE)wassometimesconsideredagodwhilehewasstillalive.Consideringaliving

ruler to be divinewas not unheard of in the ancientworld. The Egyptians had long revered theirpharaohs as living representatives of deities, and the conqueror Alexander the Great, mentionedearlier,wasofferedandacceptedthekindofobeisancereservedforthegods.ButthiswasnotdoneintheRomanworlduntilthebeginningoftheworshipoftheemperor.

Legends indicated thatOctaviandidnothaveanormalhumanbirthbut, likeothersbeforehim,wasbornoftheunionofamortalandagod.AccordingtoSuetonius,Octavian’smother,Atia,wassaidtohavebeenmadepregnantbythegodApollointheformofasnake(reminiscent,ofcourse,oftheconceptionofAlexandertheGreat).AtiahadbeenattendingthesacredritesofApolloinatemple,andinthemiddleofthenight,whileshewasasleeponherlitterinthetemple,asnakesliduptoherandthenquicklydeparted.Whensheawoke,shepurifiedherselfasshewouldhavedoneafterhavingsexwith her husband, andmiraculously the image of a snake permanently appeared on her body.Suetoniustellsusthat“AugustuswasborntenmonthslaterandforthisreasonisbelievedtobethesonofApollo”(TheDeifiedAugustus94).

Moreover,thatverynight,Atia’shusband,whowasoffatwarinThrace(northernGreece),hadadream in which he “saw his son of greater than mortal size with a thunderbolt and scepter andemblemsofJupiterBestandGreatestandaradiantcrowndrawnbytwelvebrilliantlywhitehorses”(TheDeifiedAugustus94).Clearly,thesewereportentsthatthischildwasadivinefigure,agreatgodonearth.

Unlike some of the later emperors, while in office Augustus was not enthusiastic about beingworshipedasagod.Suetonius says thathewouldnot allow temples in theRomanprovinces tobededicated to him unless they were jointly dedicated to the goddess Roma—the patron goddess ofRome.Sometimescitiesgotaroundthisimperialreluctancebybuildingatempleanddedicatingittothe“genius”ofAugustus.Thewordgeniusinthiscasedoesnotmeanhisintellectualbrilliance,buttheguardianspiritthatwatchedoverhisfamilyand,especially,himasitsleader,makinghimwhohewas. In a sense, byworshipingAugustus’sgenius, these cities reveredhim in adepersonalizedbuthighlydivinizedsense.

Moreover,despitehisreluctance,Octavianwashailedasthe“SonofGod”asearlyas40BCE—yearsbeforehewasemperor—andthistitleisfoundoncoinsasearlyas38BCE.AdecreefromtheGreek city of Cos hails Augustus as the god Sebastos (a Greek term equivalent to the Latin“Augustus”)andindicatesthathehas“byhisbenefactionstoallpeopleoutdoneeventheOlympiangods.”That’sprettystiffcompetitionforameremortal,butforhisreverentialfollowers,hewasfarmorethanthat.AfterhisdeathAugustuswasdeifiedandcalled“divine,”or“onewhohasbeenmadedivine,”or“onewhohasbeenaccountedamongthegods.”Whenhisbodywascremated,accordingtoSuetonius,ahigh-rankingRomanofficialclaimedthathe“sawAugustus’simageascendingtothesky.”HecontinuedtobeworshipedasagodbylaterRomans,includinglaterRomanemperors.9

TheEmperorCultForanancienthistorian,thewordcultdoesnothavethekindofnegativeconnotationsitmayhavetoday—referring to a wild sectarian religion with bizarre beliefs and practices. It is simply ashortenedversionofthetermcultusdeorum,whichmeans“careofthegods,”acloseequivalenttowhat todaywewouldcall“religion”(justas“agriculture”means“careof the fields”).TheRomancult of the emperor startedwithAugustus and continued through the emperorswho followedhim,manyofwhomlackedhisreticenceinbeingconsideredamanifestationofthedivineonearth.10

InaspeechbythefamousRomanoratorQuintilian(35–100CE),wearetoldhowthegodsareto

bepraisedbyspeakersgivingapublicaddress:“Some[gods]...maybepraisedbecausetheywerebornimmortal,othersbecausetheywonimmortalitybytheirvalour,athemewhichthepietyofoursovereign [the emperor Domitian] has made the glory even of these present times” (Institutes ofOratory3.7.9).11Quintilian tells us that some godswere born thatway (such as the great gods ofGreek and Romanmythology), but others have “won immortality by their valour”—that is, somehumanshavebecomedivinebecauseoftheiramazingdeeds.Andhereferstothoseforwhomthishashappenedin“thesepresenttimes.”Here,heismeaningthetwopreviousemperors,Domitian’sfather,theemperorVespasian,andDomitian’sbrother,theemperorTitus,bothofwhomweredeified.

Normally,theemperorwasofficiallydeclaredagodathisdeathbyavoteoftheRomanSenate.Thismayseemabitoddtoustoday,anditisperhapsbesttothinkoftheSenaterecognizingadivinefigurewhohadbeenintheirmidstratherthanmakingsomeonedivine.Therecognitionwasbasedonthefactthatthepersonwaspowerfulandbeneficent.Andwhocouldbemorepowerfulandbeneficentthan theRoman emperor? So-called bad emperors (therewere a number of them) did not receivedivinehonorsatdeath,butthegoodonesdid.AswithOctavian,manywereworshipedasdivineevenwhile alive. Sowe find an inscription (a text carved on stone) in the city of Pergamon that giveshonorto“theGodAugustusCaesar,”andanotherinthecityofMiletusdedicatedtoGaius,otherwiseknown tohistoryasCaligula (later consideredaverybademperor—but this inscriptionwasmadeduring his lifetime), which read “Gaius Caesar Germanicus, Son of Germanicus, God Sebastos.”Whilehewasalive,atleast,Caligulawassometimesconsidereddivine.

OvertheyearsscholarshavewrestledwiththeproblemofhowtounderstandthedevelopmentoftheemperorcultthroughouttheRomanempire—inparticularwiththeideathatalivingpersonwasreveredasagod.Couldn’teveryoneseethatthemanwashumanlikeeveryoneelse?Hehadtoeatanddrink; he had other bodily functions; he had personal weaknesses as well as strengths—he wasaltogethermortal.Inwhatsensecouldheseriouslybeconsideredagod?

Asa rule,older scholarshipwasskepticalon thispoint, arguing that in factmostpeopledidn’treally think the emperorwas a god and that the bestowal of divine honorswasmostly a form offlattery.12 This scholarly view was largely based on ancient writings that were produced by theliteraryelite,thatis,theupperechelonofsociety.Moreover,fromthisperspectiveitlookedasiftheemperorcultwassponsoredbytherulingauthoritiesthemselvesasakindofimperialpropaganda,tomakeeveryoneintheRomanprovincesunderstandandappreciatewhomtheyweredealingwithwhentheyweredealingwiththeRomanauthorities.Ultimately,theyweredealingwithagod.Inthisview,everyoneknew thatof course the emperorwas just amortal, as all hispredecessorshadbeen,butmembersoftheempireparticipatedintheimperialculttoremainonRome’sgoodside.

So cities built temples dedicated not simply to one of the great gods or goddesses ofRome—Jupiter,hiswifeJuno,Mars,Venus,oreven“Roma”—butalsotothe“god”emperor.Andsacrificesweremade to the imageof theemperor, justas to thegods.Still, in this formerviewof things theemperorwasalower-classdivinity,andtheworshipofthesehumandivinitieswasrestrictedtothosewhohadalreadybeendeifiedattheirdeaths.

Thisolderscholarlyviewisnolongertheconsensus,however.MorerecentscholarshiphasbeenlessinterestedinwhattheliteraryeliteoftheupperclasseshadtosayaboutRomanreligionandmoreinterestedinwhatwecanlearnaboutwhatmostRomans—thevastmajorityofwhomcouldnotread,letalonewrite,greatworksofbiographyorhistory—mayhavethoughtandcertainlydidpractice.Inthisnewerscholarship,thecategoryof“belief”hascometoberecognizedasrathercomplicatedwithregard to Roman religion. Unlike Christianity, Roman religions did not stress belief or the

“intellectualcontent”ofreligion.Instead,religionwasallaboutaction—whatonedid in relation tothegods, rather thanwhatonehappened to thinkorbelieve about them.From thisperspective, theemperors—bothdeadand living—were indeed treated in thewaysgodswere treated,sometimes invirtuallyidenticalways.13

More recent scholarship does not consider worship of the emperor as a top-down act ofpropaganda,promotedbyRomanofficialsamong thepoordupeswhocouldn’tknowanybetter. Itwasinsteadaseriesoflocalmovementsusuallyinitiatedbycityofficialsoftheprovincesasawayofrevering thepowerof theempire.Moreover, thisworshiphappenedwithinRomeitself,notsimplyoutintheboonies.Manypeoplequitelikelydidbelievethattheemperorwasagod.Andwhethertheybelieveditornot,theycertainlytreatedtheemperorasagod.Notonlydidtheyperformsacrificestothe(other)godsonbehalfoftheemperor,theyalsoperformedsacrificestotheemperor,asagod—oratleasttohisgenius,ortohis“numen”—thepowerwithinhimthatmadehimwhohewas,adivinebeing.

Ihavealreadyalludedtothereasonapowerfulrulerwouldbeconsidereddivine.Hewascapableofdoingmanythings,buthealsoputhisabilitiestogooduse,bybestowingbenefitsonpeopleunderhis rule. Throughout theRomanworldwe find this emphasis on “benefaction” in the inscriptionsdedicated to rulers—chiefly, but not only, the emperors.An example from a realm outside of butobviouslyrelatedtotheemperorcultisaninscriptiondedicatedtotheSyrianrulerAntiochusIIIfromthesecondcenturyBCE.AntiochushadfreedthetownofTeasfromtheoppressionofaforeignpower.Inresponse,thetownsetupcultstatuesofAntiochusandhiswifeLaodiceandperformedsacrificesatanofficialpublicceremony.ThetwostatueswerededicatedbesidethestatueofDionysus,whowasthe chief god in the city, within his temple and were accompanied by the following inscriptionhonoringAntiochusandLaodice:“Havingmadethecityanditsterritorysacred...andhavingfreedusfromtribute...theyshouldreceivehonoursfromeveryonetothegreatestpossibleextentand,bysharing in the templeandothermatterswithDionysus, shouldbecome thecommonsaviorsofourcityandshouldgiveusbenefitsincommon.”14Thepoliticalbenefactorsareconsidered“religious”heroes.Theyhavestatuesandaplaceinthetemple,andsacrificesaremadeintheirhonor.Inaveryrealsensetheyarethe“saviors”andsoaretreatedassuch.

Sotootheemperors.AlreadywefindwithAugustustheprovinceofAsiadecidingtocelebratehisbirthdayeveryyear,asexplainedinaninscriptioningratitudeforhis“benefactionofmankind”andforbeing“asaviorwhoputanend towarandestablishedall things.”Augustushad“surpassed thebenefactorsbornbeforehim,”sothat“thebirthdayofthegodmarkedfortheworldthebeginningofgoodtidingsthroughhiscoming.”15

IfallthissoundsfamiliartoChristianreaders,itshould.Thisman—here,theemperor—isagodwhosebirthdayistobecelebratedbecauseitbrought“goodtidings”totheworld;heisthegreatestbenefactorofhumans,surpassingallothers,andistobeconsidereda“savior.”Jesuswasnottheonly“savior-God”knowntotheancientworld.

ANonruler:ThePassingofPeregrinusTo this point, in exploring humans who were thought to have become divine, I have focusedprincipally on powerful rulers. But other great humans also had this capacity. Of course, lots ofpeopleamongusarereasonablypowerful,wise,orvirtuous.Othersareremarkablypowerful,wise,orvirtuous.Andothersareunbelievablypowerful,wise,orvirtuous.Ifsomeone’spower,wisdom,orvirtueisalmostbeyondbelief,itmaybebecausethepersonisnotalowerlife-form—amortallike

therestofus.Thatpersonmaybeagodinhumanform.OrsoitwaswidelybelievedintheGreekandRomanworlds.

Oneoftheclearestwaystoevaluatethecommonbeliefsofasocietyistoconsiderthesatiresthatarisewithinit.Satiremakesfunofstandardassumptions,perspectives,views,andbeliefs.Forsatiretowork,ithastobedirectedagainstsomethingthatiswidelyaccepted.Thisisonereasonthatsatireis such a perfect tool for unpacking the beliefs of other cultures. As it turns out, we have somebrilliantsatiresfromtheRomanworld.

One of the most entertaining satirists of ancient times was the second-century CE Lucian ofSamosata, a Greek-speaking wit who proved to be the gadfly of all pretension, especiallyphilosophicalandreligious.AmongLucian’smanysurvivingworksisabookcalledThePassingofPeregrinus.Peregrinuswasaself-styledphilosopheroftheCynicmode.InancientphilosophybeingaCynicdidnotmean simplybeing cynical; itwas a styleof philosophy.Cynicphilosopherswereadamant thatyoushouldn’t livefor the“goodthings” in life.Youshouldn’tcarewhatyoupossess,what you wear, or what you eat. You shouldn’t care for anything, in fact, that is external to you,anything that is ultimatelybeyondyour ability to control. If yourhouseburnsdown, that’soutsideyourcontrol,soyoushouldn’tbepersonallyinvestedinyourhouse.Ifyougetfiredfromyourjob,that’s outside your control, so you shouldn’t be personally invested in your job. If your spousedivorcesyouoryourchildunexpectedlydies,thosethingsareoutsideyourcontrol,soyoushouldn’tbepersonally invested in your family.What youcan control are your attitudes about the things inyourlife.Andsoitisyourinnerself,yourattitudes,thatyoushouldbeconcernedabout.

Peoplewho hold such views are not going to be interested in having a nice, comfortable life(since it can be taken away), in how other people respond to them (noway to control that), or insocialconvention(whyshouldanyonecare?).Cynicphilosopherswhoactedouttheirconvictionshadno possessions, no personal loves, and often nomanners. They didn’t have permanent homes andperformedbodilyfunctionsinpublic.That’swhytheywerecalledCynics.ThewordcynicisfromtheGreekwordfordog.Thesepeoplelivedlikedogs.

SomepeoplefromoutsidetheranksofCynicshighlyrespectedthem.Somepeoplethoughttheycould be brilliant philosophers. And some people who wanted to be thought of as brilliantphilosophers becameCynics. In a sense, itwas easy enough to do.All youhad to dowasgiveupeverythinganddeclaresuchachoicetobeavirtue.

LucianthoughtthewholeCynicbusinesswasasham,anattention-grabbingploywithnoserioussubstancebehindit.AndsohemockedCynicsandtheirways.Nooneearnedhisopprobriummorethan a Cynic named Peregrinus. In The Passing of Peregrinus (meaning, the death of Peregrinus)Lucian tells the real story behind this famousCynicwhomothers in his time considered to be sodeeply profound and philosophical that they suspected he was in fact a divine being—which ispreciselywhatPeregrinuswanted,inLucian’sview.LuciangivesahilariousaccountofPeregrinus’slife,buthereI’minterestedintheeventssurroundinghisdeath.Inasense,theentirebookislookingforwardtothedeathofthisself-aggrandizingproponentofselflessdebasement.

PeregrinusreportedlypresentedhimselfasbeingthegodProteusintheflesh.Andhewantedtodemonstrate his divine virtue by the way he died. As a Cynic he proclaimed—hypocritically, inLucian’sview—theneedtoabstainfromallthepleasureandjoyofthislife.Hedecidedtoprovehispointbyvoluntarilyundergoingaviolentandpainfuldeath,soastoshowhowhethoughtthatpeopleshould in fact live. He planned, and proclaimed, that he would immolate himself. According toLucian,hedidjustthat,beforealargecrowdthathadgatheredtoobservetheevent.

After announcing his intentions and hyping the event at great length (itself a form of self-aggrandizement,asLucianportraysit),atasettime,aroundmidnight,andneartheOlympicgames(wherecrowdswouldbesuretogather),Peregrinusandhisfollowersbuiltanenormouspyreandlitit.AccordingtoLucian,Peregrinushopedtobestoppedbythosewhocouldnotbeartoseehimpassfromhumanexistence,butwhenitcametothemoment,Peregrinusrealizedhehadnochoicebuttogothroughwiththedeed.Hecasthimselfintotheragingfireandsoendedhislife.

Lucian claims to have witnessed the event and thought the entire episode was ridiculous andabsurd.Hesaysthatonthewaybackfromthescenehemetpeoplewhowerecoming—toolate—toseethegreatmandisplayhisgodlikecourageandresiliencetopain.Lucianinformedthemthattheyhadmissedthefestivities,buthetoldthemwhathappened,anddidsoasifhehimselfwereabeliever:

Forthebenefitofthedullards,agogtolisten,Iwouldthickentheplotabitonmyownaccount,sayingthatwhenthepyrewaskindledandProteusflunghimselfbodilyin,agreatearthquakefirsttookplace,accompaniedbyabellowingoftheground,andthenavulture,flyingupoutofthemidstoftheflames,wentofftoHeaven,saying,inhumanspeech,withaloudvoice,“Iamthroughwiththeearth;toOlympusIfare.”(ThePassingofPeregrinus39)16

AndsoPeregrinus,intheshapeofabird(notthenobleeaglebutthescavengervulture),allegedlyascended toMountOlympus,homeof thegods, to live there,divineman thathewas.ToLucian’sunmitigated amusement, he thenmet anothermanwhowas also telling about the event. Thismanclaimed that after itwas all over, he hadmet the supposedly deadPeregrinus,whowaswearing awhite garment and a garland ofwild olive.Moreover, thisman indicated that before thismeeting,whenPeregrinushadmethisfieryfate,avulturehadarisenfromthefireandflownoff toheaven.ThiswasthevulturethatLucianhimselfhadinvented!Andsostoriesgo,astheyareinvented,toldbywordofmouth,andthencometobetakenasgospeltruth.

Lucian,ofcourse,mocked theentireproceedingandconcludedhisaccountbyspeakingnotofPeregrinus’sdivinity,butofhisutter,andratherlowly,humanity:“SoendedthatpoorwretchProteus,amanwho(toputitbriefly)neverfixedhisgazeonthetruthbutalwaysdidandsaideverythingwithaviewtogloryandthepraiseofthemultitude,eventotheextentofleapingintofire,whenhewassurenottoenjoythepraisebecausehecouldnothearit”(ThePassingofPeregrinus42).

DivineHumansintheGreekandRomanWorldsFROMTHESEEXAMPLES,WEcanseeavarietyofwaysintheancientworldthatdivinebeingscouldbethought tobehumanand thathumanscouldbe thought tobedivine.Again, thiswayof lookingatthings stands considerably at oddswith howmost people today understand the relationship of thehumanandthedivine,atleastpeoplewhostandinthewesternreligioustraditions(Jews,Christians,Muslims).AsIhavenotedalready,inourworlditiswidelythoughtthatthedivinerealmisseparatedfrom the humanby an unbridgeable chasm.God is one thing; humans are another—andnever thetwainshallmeet.Well,almostnever: in theChristian tradition theydidmeetonce, in thepersonofJesus.Ourquestionishowthatwasthoughttohavehappened.Attherootofthat ideaisadifferentsensibilityabout theworld,one inwhichdivinity isnotabsolutelybutonly relatively remote fromhumanity.

Inthisancientwayofthinking,bothhumanityanddivinityareonaverticalcontinuum,andthesetwocontinuumssometimesmeetatthehighendoftheoneandthelowendoftheother.Bycontrast,

mostmodernpeople,atleastintheWest,thinkthatGodisaboveusallineveryrespectandininfinitedegree.He iscompletelyOther.And there isnocontinuuminGod.Forone thing, therearen’tanyothergodsthatcouldprovideacontinuum.ThereisonlyoneGod,andheisinfinitelybeyondwhatwe can think, not just relatively better in everyway. True, some humans aremore “godlike” thanothers—and in some traditions there does appear to be some crossover to the divine (e.g., withRomanCatholic saints).But even there, at the endof theday,God iswhollyOther comparedwitheveryoneandeverythingelseandisonanentirelydifferentplane,byhimself.

Butnotformostancientpeople.ApartfromJewsintheancientworld—whomIwilladdressinthenextchapter—everyonewasapolytheist.Therewerelotsofgods,andtheywereongradedlevelsof divinity. This can be seen in the way ancient people talked about divine beings. Consider thefollowinginscriptionfromthecityofMytilene,whichwantedtohonortheemperorasagod.Thisdecree speaks of those humans who “have attained heavenly glory and possess the eminence andpowerofgods.”17But thenitgoesontosaythat thedivinestatuscanalwaysbeheightenedfor thedivineemperor:“Ifanythingmoregloriousthantheseprovisionsisfoundhereafter,theenthusiasmandpietyofthecitywillnotfailinanythingthatcanfurtherdeifyhim.”Itistheselastwordsthatarethemost important:“canfurtherdeifyhim.”Howcan they furtherdeify someonewho isalreadyadeity?Theycannot ifbeingadeitymeansbeingata fixed,certain levelofdivinity.But theycan ifbeingadeityplacedapersononacontinuumofdivinity,say,atthelowerend.Thenthepersoncouldbe moved up. And how is the person to be moved up? The decree is quite clear: the reason theemperorhasbeenregardedasdivineinthefirstplaceisbecauseofwhathehasdoneforthepeopleof Mytilene, “the provisions” that he has made for them. If he comes through with even morebenefactions,thenhewillbecomeevenmoredivine.

Whenancientpeopleimaginedtheemperor—oranyindividual—asagod,itdidnotmeanthattheemperorwasZeusoroneof theothergodsofMountOlympus.Hewasadivinebeingonamuchlowerlevel.

TheDivinePyramidINSTEAD OF A CONTINUUM, possibly it is helpful to understand the ancient conception of the divinerealm as a kind of pyramid of power, grandeur, and deity.18 Some ancient people—for example,someof thosemorephilosophically inclined—thought thatat theverypinnacleof thedivinerealmwas one ultimate deity, a godwhowas over all things, whowas infinitely, or virtually infinitely,powerfulandwhowassometimesthoughttobethesourceofallthings.Thisgod—whetherZeus,orJupiter,oranunknowngod—stoodattheapexofwhatwemightimagineasthedivinepyramid.

Belowthisgod,onthenextlowertier,werethegreatgodsknownfromtalesandtraditionsthathadbeenpasseddownfromantiquity,forexample,thetwelvegodsonMountOlympusdescribedinthe ancient myths and in Homer ’s Iliad andOdyssey, gods such as Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Athena,Mercury,andsoon.Thesegodswerefantasticallypowerful, farbeyondwhatwecan imagine.Themyths about them were entertaining stories, but many people thought these myths were just that,stories—not historical narratives of things that actually happened. Philosophers tried to“demythologize”themyths,thatis,tostripthemoftheirobviousliteraryfeaturestoseehow,apartfromaliteralreading,theytolddeepertruthsabouttheworldandreality.Atanyrate,thesegodswereworshiped as themost powerful beings in the universe.Many of themwere adopted by cities andtownsastheirpatrongods;somewereacknowledgedandworshipedbythestateasawhole,which

hadclearandcompellingreasonstowantthemightygodstolookfavorablyuponitintimesofbothwarandpeace.

Buttheywerenottheonlydivinebeings.Onalowertierofthepyramidweremany,manyothergods.Every city and townhad its local gods,whoprotected, defended, and aided the place.Thereweregodsofeveryimaginablefunction:godsofwar,love,weather,health,childbirth—younameit.Thereweregodsforeverylocale:godsofforests,meadows,mountains,andrivers.Theworldwaspopulatedwithgods.Thisiswhyitmadenosensetoancientpeople—apartfromJews—toworshiponlyoneGod.Whywouldyouworshiponegod?Therewerelotsofgods,andallofthemdeservedtobeworshiped.Ifyoudecidedtostartworshipinganewgod—forexample,becauseyoumovedtoanew village and wanted to pay respect to its local divinity—that did not require you to stopworshipinganyoftheothergods.IfyoudecidedtoperformasacrificetoApollo,thatdidn’tstopyoufromalsoofferingasacrificetoAthena,orZeus,orHera.Thiswasaworldoflotsofgodsandlotsofwhatwemightcallreligioustolerance.

Belowtheselevelsofgodstherewerestillothertiers.Therewasagroupofdivinebeingsknownasdaimones.Sometimesthiswordgetstranslatedas“demons,”butthatwordaswethinkofittodaygives thewrong connotation.Someof thesebeings couldbemalevolent, to be sure, but not all ofthemwere;andtheywerenotfallenangelsorwickedspiritsthatcouldpossesspeopleandmakethemdohurtfulthingssuchasflingthemselvesinharm’swayortwisttheirheads360degreesorprojectilevomit(asinthemovieTheExorcist).Thedaimonesinsteadweresimplyalowerlevelofdivinity,notnearlyaspowerfulas the localgods, letalone thegreatgods.Theywerespiritualbeingsfarmorepowerfulthanhumans.Butbeingcloserinpowertohumans,theyhadmoretodowithhumansthanthemoreremotegreatgodsandcouldoftenhelppeoplethroughtheirlives,asinthefamousdaimonthattheGreekphilosopherSocratesclaimedguidedhisactions.Ifdispleased,theycoulddoharmfulthings.Itwasimportanttokeepthemhappybypayingthemtheirdueinreverenceandworship.

Inthedivinepyramidayetlowertier,nearoratthebottom,wouldbeinhabitedbydivinehumans.This is where the “pyramid” analogy breaks down because we should not think that these divinehumansweremorenumerousthantheotherdeitiesabovethem.Infact,itwasrelativelyraretorunacrosspeoplewhoweresomighty,wise,orgorgeousthattheymustinsomesensebedivine.Butitdidhappenonoccasion.Agreatgeneral,aking,anemperor,agreatphilosopher,afantasticbeauty—these couldbemore thanhuman.Suchpeople couldbe superhuman.They couldbedivine.Maybetheirfatherwasagod.Maybetheywereagodtemporarilyassumingahumanbody.Maybebecauseof their own virtue, power, or physical features theywere thought to have been accepted into thedivinerealm.Buttheywerenotliketherestofuslowlyhumans.

Wetoo,asIhavepointedout,areonacontinuum.Someamongusarequitelowly—thosewhomthelikesofLucianofSamosata,forexample,wouldconsiderthescumoftheearth.Othersofusareabout average in every way. Others of us think that we, and our entire families, are well aboveaverage.Someofusrecognizethattherearefellowsamonguswhoaresuperiorinremarkableways.Forancientpeople,someofusaresovastlysuperiorthatwehavebeguntomoveintotherealmofthedivine.

JesusandtheDivineRealmTHISVIEWOFTHEdivinerealmdidnotchangesignificantlyuntillaterChristianschangedit.Itishardto put a finger onwhen exactly it changed, but change it did. By the time of the fourth Christian

century—some three hundred years after Jesus lived, when the empire was in the process ofconvertingfrompaganismtoChristianity—manyofthegreatthinkersoftheRomanworldhadcometobelievethatahugechasmseparatedthedivineandhumanrealms.Godwas“upthere”andwastheAlmighty.HealonewasGod.Therewerenoothergodsandsotherewasnocontinuumofdivinity.Therewasjustusdownhere,thelowlysinners,andGodupthere,thesupremesovereignoverallthatis.

Jesushimselfeventuallycametobethoughtofasbelongingnotdownherewithus,butuptherewithGod.HehimselfwasGod,withacapitalG.ButhowcouldhebeGod,ifGodwasGod,andtherewerenotanumberofgods,noteventwogods,butonlyoneGod?HowcouldJesusbeGodandGodbeGodandyet therebeonlyoneGod?That, inpart, is thequestion thatdrives thisbook.But themorepressingandimmediatequestionisabouthowthisperceptionstartedinthefirstplace.HowdidJesusmovefrombeingahumantobeingGod—inanysense?

Ishouldstressthosefinalthreewords.OneofthemistakesthatpeoplemakewhenthinkingaboutthequestionofJesusasGodinvolvestakingtheviewthateventuallywaswidelyheldbythefourthChristiancentury—thatagreatchasmexistsbetweenthehumananddivinerealms—andassumingthatthisviewwasinplaceduringtheearlydaysoftheChristianmovement.Thismistakeismadenotonlybylaypeople,butalso,widely,byprofessionaltheologians.Andnotjusttheologians,butscholarsofallsorts—includingbiblicalscholars(ormaybe,especiallybiblicalscholars)andhistoriansofearlyChristianity.Whenpeoplewhomakethismistakeask“howdidJesusbecomeGod?,”theymean,howdid Jesusmove from the realmof thepurelyhuman—where therearemillionsofuswithvaryingdegreesof talent,strength,beauty,andvirtue—totherealmofGod,Godhimself, theoneandonlyAlmightyCreatorandLordofallthatis?HowdidJesusbecomeGOD?19

This is indeedan interestingquestion—because it did indeedhappen. JesusbecameGod in thatmajorfourth-centurysense.ButhehadbeenseenasGodbeforethat,bypeoplewhodidnothavethisfourth-centuryunderstandingoftherelationshipofthehumananddivinerealms.Whenwetalkaboutearliest Christianity andwe ask the question, “DidChristians think of Jesus asGod?,”we need torephrasethequestionslightly,sothatweask,“InwhatsensedidChristiansthinkofJesusasGod?”Ifthe divine realm is a continuum rather than an absolute, a graduated pyramid rather than a singlepoint,thenitisthesenseinwhichJesusisGodthatisthemainissueattheoutset.

ItwillbecomeclearinthefollowingchaptersthatJesuswasnotoriginallyconsideredtobeGodinanysenseatall,and thatheeventuallybecamedivineforhis followers insomesensebeforehecametobethoughtofasequalwithGodAlmightyinanabsolutesense.ButthepointIstressisthatthiswas,infact,adevelopment.

OneoftheenduringfindingsofmodernscholarshipontheNewTestamentandearlyChristianityoverthepasttwocenturiesisthatthefollowersofJesus,duringhislife,understoodhimtobehumanthrough and through, not God. People saw Jesus as a teacher, a rabbi, and even a prophet. Somepeoplethoughtofhimasthe(veryhuman)messiah.Buthewasbornlikeeveryoneelseandhewas“like”everyoneelse.HewasraisedinNazarethandwasnotparticularlynoteworthyasayouth.Asanadult—orpossiblyevenasachild—hebecameconvinced,likemanyotherJewsofhistime,thathewaslivingneartheendoftheage,thatGodwassoontointerveneinhistorytooverthrowtheforcesofevilandtobringinagoodkingdomhereonearth.Jesusfeltcalledtoproclaimthismessageofthecomingapocalypse,andhespenthisentirepublicministrydoingso.

EventuallyJesusirritatedtherulingauthoritiesduringatriphemadetoJerusalem,andtheyhadhimarrestedandtried.HewasbroughtbeforethegovernorofJudea,PontiusPilate,andafterashort

trialhewasconvictedonchargesofpoliticalinsurgency:hewasclaimingtobetheJewishkingwhenonlytheRomanoverlordswhowereinchargeofPalestineandtherestoftheMediterraneancouldappointaking.Asapoliticaltroublemakerhewascondemnedtoaparticularlyignominiousdeath,bycrucifixion.AndasfarastheRomanswereconcerned,that’swherehisstoryended.

Butinfact,that’snotwherehisstoryended.Andsowereturntothedrivingquestionofourstudy:HowdidanapocalypticprophetfromthebackwatersofruralGalilee,crucifiedforcrimesagainstthestate,cometobethoughtofasequaltotheOneGodAlmighty,makerofallthings?HowdidJesus—inthemindsandheartsofhislaterfollowers—cometobeGod?

AnobviousplacetostarttofindananswerwouldbewiththelifeandteachingsofJesus.Butfirstweneedtoconsiderthereligiousandculturalmatrixoffirst-centuryJudaismwithinwhichhelivedhislifeandproclaimedhismessage.Aswewillsee,eventhoughJewsweredistinctfromthepaganworld around them in thinking that only oneGodwas to beworshiped and served, theywere notdistinctintheirconceptionoftherelationshipofthatrealmtothehumanworldweinhabit.Jewsalsobelievedthatdivinitiescouldbecomehumanandhumanscouldbecomedivine.

CHAPTER2

DivineHumansinAncientJudaism

WHEN I FIRST STARTEDmy teaching career in themid-1980s I was offered an adjunct position atRutgers University. Since part-time adjunct faculty members rarely make much money, I workedotherjobstomakeendsmeet,includingoneattheInstituteforAdvancedStudyatPrinceton.Along-term project was under way there called the Princeton Epigraphy Project. It involved collecting,cataloguing, and entering into a computer database all of the Greek inscriptions in major urbancenters throughout theancientMediterranean.Thesewereeventuallypublished inseparatevolumesforeach location. Iwas the researchgrunt for theperson incharge,who,unlikeme,wasahighlytrainedclassicistwhocouldreadaninscriptionlikeanewspaper.Ihadthejobofenteringandeditingtheinscriptions.OneofthelocalitiesthatIhadresponsibilityforwastheancientcityofPriene,onthewestcoastofTurkey.IhadneverheardofPrienebefore that,butIcollectedandcataloguedall theinscriptionsthathadeverbeenfoundthereandpreviouslypublished.

Movethecalendarupto2009andmylifewasverydifferentindeed.AsatenuredprofessorattheUniversity of North Carolina, I had the ability to travel far and wide. And I did. That summer, IdecidedtotouraroundTurkeywithmygoodfriendDaleMartin,professorofNewTestamentatYale,andcheckoutvariousarchaeologicalsites.Wespenttwoweeksthere,withveryfewadvanceplans,simplygoingwhereverwewantedtogo.Itwasterrific.

OneofthehighlightswasgoingtotheruinsofancientPriene.It’sanamazingsite,inastrikingmountainsetting.OvertheyearsGermanarchaeologistshavemadesignificantdigsthere,butitisforthemostpartstilldeserted.Thereareruinsoftemples,houses,shops,andstreets.Thereisatheaterthat could seat five thousand. An interesting bouleuterion—a council house, where the localgoverningcouncilmembersgatheredfortheirmeetings—stillstandsinitssquareshapewithseatsonthreesides.AtempleofAthenaPollisisamajorstructure,itscolumnsfallenandthedrumsthatoncemadeupcolumnsscatteredon theground.And thereare lotsofGreek inscriptions, just sittingouthereandtherewaitingtoberead.

Thatafternoon,lookingatoneoftheinscriptions,Ihadablindingrealization.Itwasoneofthosethoughts thatwascompletelyobvious—an idea that scholarshaddiscussed formanyyearsbut thathad never hitme, personally,with full force.How could that be?Why had it never impressedmebefore?IhadtositdownandthinkhardforfifteenminutesbeforeIcouldmoveagain.

At that timeIhadbeenmakingsomeinitialsketchesfor thisbookandwasplanningonwritingabouthowJesusbecameGodasapurelyinternalChristiandevelopment,asalogicaloutgrowthofthe teachings of Jesus as they developed after some of his followers came to believe he had beenraisedfromthedead(asI’llexplaininlaterchapters).ButIdidn’thaveasinglethoughtofputtingthatdevelopmentinrelationshiptowhatwasgoingonbeyondtheboundsoftheChristiantradition.Andthen I read an inscription lying outside a temple in Priene. The inscription referred to the God(Caesar)Augustus.

Andithitme:thetimewhenChristianityarose,withitsexaltedclaimsaboutJesus,wasthesame

timewhen the emperor cult had started tomove into full swing,with its exalted claims about theemperor.ChristianswerecallingJesusGoddirectlyontheheelsoftheRomanscallingtheemperorGod.Couldthisbeahistoricalaccident?Howcoulditbeanaccident?Thesewerenotsimplyparalleldevelopments.Thiswasacompetition.Whowastherealgod-man?TheemperororJesus?Irealizedat thatmoment that theChristianswerenotelevatingJesus toa levelofdivinity inavacuum.Theyweredoingitundertheinfluenceofandindialoguewiththeenvironmentinwhichtheylived.AsIsaid, I knew that others had thought this before. But it struck me at that moment like a bolt oflightning.

Idecided thenand there to reconceptualizemybook.But anobviousproblemalsohitme.ThefirstChristianswhostartedspeakingaboutJesusasdivinewerenotpagansfromPriene.TheywereJewsfromPalestine.TheseJews,ofcourse,alsoknewabouttheemperorcult.Infact,itwaspracticedinsomeofthemoreGreekcitiesofPalestineduringthefirstcentury.ButthefirstfollowersofJesuswere not particularly imbuedwithGreek culture. Theywere Jews from rural and village parts ofGalilee. Itmay be the case that later, after theChristian church becamemore heavily gentile,withpagan convertsmaking up themajority of itsmembers, the heightened emphasis on Jesus asGod(ratherthantheemperorasGod)madesense.Butwhataboutatthebeginning?

SoIstartedthinkingaboutdivinehumanswithinJudaism.Herewasanimmediateenigma.Jews,unliketheirpaganneighbors,weremonotheists.TheybelievedinonlyoneGod.Howcouldtheysaythat JesuswasGod and still claim therewas only oneGod? IfGodwasGod and JesuswasGod,doesn’tthatmaketwoGods?IrealizedthatIneededtodosomeresearchintothemattertofigureitout.

JudaismintheAncientWorldTHEFIRSTSTEP,OFcourse,mustbe to layout inbasic termswhatJudaismwasin theancientworld,aroundthetimeofJesus.MyfocusisonwhatJewsatthetime“believed”sinceIaminterestedinthequestionofhowbelief inJesusasGodcouldfit intoJewish thinkingmorebroadly. Ishouldstressthat Judaismwasnotprincipallyaboutbeliefper se; formost Jews, Judaismwasasetofpracticeseverybitasmuch,orevenmore,thanasetofbeliefs.BeingJewishmeantlivingincertainways.Itmeant engaging in certain “religious” activities, such as performing sacrifices and saying prayersandhearingscriptureread;itmeantcertainkindsoflifestylessuchasobservingfoodregulationsandhonoring the Sabbath day; it meant certain ritual practices, such as circumcising baby boys andobservingJewishfestivals;itmeantfollowingcertainethicalcodes,suchascanbefoundintheTenCommandments.All of this andmuchmore iswhat itmeant to be Jewish in antiquity.But for thepurposesofthischapter,IamprincipallyinterestedinwhatJewsofthetimethoughtaboutGodandthe divine realm, since it is these thoughts that canmake sense of how aman like Jesus could beconsidereddivine.

SayingwhatJewsthoughtisitselfhighlyproblematic,sincelotsofdifferentJewsthoughtlotsofdifferent things. It would be like asking what Christians think today. Someone may well say thatChristians believe that Christ is fully divine and fully human.And that would be true—except forthoseChristianswhocontinuetothinkthathereallywasGodandwashumanonlyinappearance,orforthoseChristianswhothinkthathewasaninordinatelyreligiousmanbutwasnotreallyGod.YoucanpickalmostanydoctrineoftheChristianchurchandfindlotsofpeoplewhoidentifythemselvesasChristians thinking something different fromwhat otherChristians think about it. It’s likewhat

someEpiscopalianssayaboutthemselvestoday:getfourinaroomandyou’llfindfiveopinions.SotoowithancientJews.

WidespreadJewishBeliefsWITH ALL THESE CAVEATS inmind, I can try to explain brieflywhatmost Jews at the time of Jesusappeartohavebelieved.(Afulltreatment,ofcourse,wouldrequireaverylargebookofitsown.)1Jewsonthewholeweremonotheists.Theyknewthatthepaganshadlotsofgods,butforthemtherewasonlyoneGod.ThiswastheirGod,theGodofIsrael.ThisGodhadcreatedtheworldandallthatwasinit.Moreover,hehadpromisedtheancestorsofIsraelanenormousbodyofdescendantswhomadeupIsrael.HehadcalledIsraeltobehispeopleandmadeacovenant—akindofpact,orpeacetreaty—with them: he would be their God if they would be his people. Being his people meantfollowingthelawhehadgiventhem—thelawofMoses,whichisnowfoundinthefirstfivebooksofthe Hebrew Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, which together aresometimescalledtheTorah(theHebrewwordforlaw).

ThiswasthelawthatGodhadrevealedtohisprophetMosesafterhesavedthepeopleofIsraelfromtheirbondageinEgypt,asdescribedinthebookofExodus.Thelawincludedinstructionsonhow toworshipGod (for example, through sacrifices), how to be distinct as a social group fromotherpeoples(forexample, throughthekosherfoodlaws),andhowtolivetogether incommunity(forexample,throughtheethicalinjunctionsoftheTenCommandments).AttheheartoftheJewishlaw was the commandment to worship the God of Israel alone. The very beginning of the TenCommandmentsstates:“IamtheLordyourGod,whobroughtyououtofthelandofEgypt,outofthehouseofslavery;youshallhavenoothergodsbeforeme”(Exod.20:2–3).

BythedaysofJesus,most(butnotall)JewsconsideredotherancientbookstobesacredalongwiththeTorah.Therewerewritingsofprophets(suchasAmos,Isaiah,andJeremiah)thatdescribedthehistoryofancientIsraelandproclaimedthewordofGodtothediresituationspeoplehadfacedduringdifficulttimes.TherewereotherwritingssuchasthebooksofPsalmsandProverbsthatwereinvestedwithspecialdivineauthority.SomeoftheseotherbooksrestatedtheteachingsoftheTorah,speakingthewordsofthelawtoanewsituation.ThebookofIsaiah,forexample,isemphaticinitsmonotheisticassertions:“IamtheLORD,andthereisnoother;besidesmethereisnogod”(Isa.45:5);orascanbefoundlaterinthesamechapteroftheprophet:

Turntomeandbesaved,Alltheendsoftheearth!ForIamGod,andthereisnoother.

BymyselfIhavesworn,Frommymouthhasgoneforthinrighteousness

Awordthatshallnotreturn:“Tomeeverykneeshallbow,Everytongueshallswear.”(Isa45:22–23)

IsaiahishereexpressingaviewthatbecameimportantlaterinthehistoryofJudaism.NotonlyisGodtheonlyGodthereis,buteventuallyeveryonewillrealizeit.Allthepeoplesofearthwill,inthefuture,bowdowninworshipbeforehimaloneandconfesshisname.

CanThereBeaSpectrumofDivinityinJudaism?WITHTHESTRESSONtheonenessofGodthroughoutscripture,howisitpossibletoimaginethatJewscouldhavesomethinglikeadivinepyramid?Withinthepagansystemitwaspossibletoimaginenotonly that divine beings temporarily became human, but also that humans in some sense could bedivine.ButifthereisonlyoneGod,howcouldthatbepossible?

In this chapter I argue that itwas in fact possible and that Jews also thought therewere divinehumans.Beforegoingintodetailabouthowthiscouldhappen,however,IneedtomaketwogeneralpointsaboutJewishmonotheism.ThefirstisthatnoteveryancientIsraeliteheldamonotheisticview—theideathatthereisonlyoneGod.EvidenceforthiscanbeseenalreadyintheverseIquotedfromtheTorahabove,thebeginningoftheTenCommandments.Notehowthecommandmentisworded.Itdoesnotsay,“YoushallbelievethatthereisonlyoneGod.”Itsays,“Youshallhavenoothergodsbeforeme.”Thiscommandment,asstated,presupposesthatthereareothergods.Butnoneofthemisto be worshiped ahead of, or instead of, the God of Israel. As it came to be interpreted, thecommandmentalsomeant thatnoneof theseothergodswas tobeworshipedalongsideoforevenaftertheGodofIsrael.Butthatdoesnotmeantheothergodsdon’texist.Theysimplyarenottobeworshiped.

This isaviewthatscholarshavecalledhenotheism, indistinctionfromtheviewIhave thusfarbeencallingmonotheism.Monotheismistheviewthatthereis,infact,onlyoneGod.Henotheismisthe view that there are other gods, but there is only one God who is to be worshiped. The TenCommandmentsexpressahenotheisticview,asdoesthemajorityoftheHebrewBible.ThebookofIsaiah,with its insistence that“IaloneamGod, there isnoother,” ismonotheistic. It represents theminorityviewintheHebrewBible.

By the time of Jesus, many, possibly most, Jews had moved into the monotheistic camp. Butdoesn’tthatviewprecludethepossibilityofotherdivinebeingsinthedivinerealm?Asitturnsout—this is my second point—that is not the case either. Jews may not (usually) have called othersuperhumandivinebeings“God”or“gods.”Buttherewereothersuperhumandivinebeings.Inotherwords, therewere beingswho lived not on earth but in the heavenly realm andwho had godlike,superhuman powers, even if theywere not the equals of the ultimateGod himself. In theHebrewBible, for example, there are angels, cherubim, and seraphim—attendants uponGodwhoworshiphimandadministerhiswill(see,forexample,Isa.6:1–6).Thesearefantasticallypowerfulbeingsfarabove humans in the scale of existence. They are lower-level divinities. By the time of the NewTestamentwefindJewishauthorsreferringtosuchentitiesasprincipalities,dominions,powers,andauthorities—unnameddivinebeingsintheheavenlyrealmwhoareactiveaswellhereonearth(e.g.,Eph.6:12;Col.1:16).Andthesedivinitiesstandinahierarchicalscale,acontinuumofpower.Somecosmic beings aremore powerful than others. So Jewish texts speak of the great angelsMichael,Gabriel,andRaphael.Thesearedivinepowersfarabovehumans,thoughfarbelowGodaswell.

Thepoint is this:evenwithinJudaismtherewasunderstoodtobeacontinuumofdivinebeingsanddivinepower,comparableinmanywaystothatwhichcouldbefoundinpaganism.Thiswastrueevenamongauthorswhowere strictmonotheists.Theymayhavebelieved that therewasonlyonesupremebeingwhocouldbe calledGodAlmighty, just as somepaganphilosophers thought therewasonlyoneultimatetruegodabovealltheothersatthetopofthe“pyramid.”Andsome,possiblymost,JewsinsistedthatthisoneGodalonewastobeworshiped.ButtherewereotherJewswhomweknowaboutwhothoughtitwasaltogetheracceptableandrighttoworshipotherdivinebeings,suchasthegreatangels.Justasitisrighttobowdownbeforeagreatkinginobeisancetohim,theybelieved

itisrighttobowdownbeforeanevengreaterbeing,anangel,todoobeisance.WeknowthatsomeJewsthoughtitwasrighttoworshipangelsinnosmallpartbecauseanumber

of our surviving texts insist that itnot be done.2 You don’t get laws prohibiting activities that areneverperformed.Nocityonearthwouldhavealawagainstjaywalkingoragainstspeedingifnoonehadeverdoneeither.Ancientauthorsinsistedthatangelsnotbeworshipedpreciselybecauseangelswerebeingworshiped.Eventhosewhowereworshipingangelsmayhavethoughtthatdoingsowasnotaviolationof theTenCommandments:Godwas theultimate sourceofall thatwasdivine.Buttherewerelowerdivinitiesaswell.EvenwithinmonotheisticJudaism.

ItiswithinthiscontextthatImovetomycentralconcernhere:divinebeingswhobecomehumanwithinJudaism,andhumanswhobecomedivine.Iconsiderthreecategoriesroughlycorrespondingtothethreewaysahumancouldbedivineinthepaganworld.WithinJudaismwefinddivinebeingswhotemporarilybecomehuman,semidivinebeingswhoarebornoftheunionofadivinebeingandamortal,andhumanswhoare,orwhobecome,divine.

DivineBeingsWhoTemporarilyBecomeHumanANGELS IN ANCIENT JUDAISM were widely understood to be superhuman messengers of God whomediatedhiswillonearth. It isstriking thatvariousangelssometimesappearedonearth inhumanguise.Morethanthat,insomeancientJewishtextsthereisafigureknownas“theAngeloftheLord,”whoisregardedasthe“chief”angel.Howexaltedisthisfigure?InsomepassagesheisidentifiedasGodhimself.Andyetsometimesheappearsasahuman.ThisistheJewishcounterparttothepaganviewthatthegodscouldassumehumanguisetovisittheearth.

TheAngeloftheLordasGodandHumanAnexampleearly in scripturecanbe found inGenesis16.Thesituation is this.GodhaspromisedAbrahamthathewillhavemanydescendants,thathewill,infact,bethefatherofthenationofIsrael.Butheischildless.HiswifeSarahhandsherservantHagarover tohimsohecanconceiveachildwithher.Abrahamwillinglycomplies,but thenSarahbecomes jealousofHagarandmistreatsher.Hagarrunsaway.

“TheAngeloftheLord”thenfindsHagarinthewildernessandspeakstoher(Gen.16:7).Hetellsher to return to her mistress and lets her know that she, Hagar, will have a son who will be theancestorofa(different)greatpeople.Butthen,afterreferringtothisheavenlyvisitantastheAngeloftheLord,thetextindicatesthatitwas,infact,“theLORD”whohadspokenwithher(16:13).Moreover,HagarrealizesthatshehasbeenaddressingGodhimselfandexpressesherastonishmentthatshehad“seenGodandremainedaliveafterseeinghim”(16:13).Herethereisbothambiguityandconfusion:either theLord appears as an angel in the formof ahuman,or theAngelof theLord is theLordhimself,Godinhumanguise.

A similar ambiguityoccurs two chapters later, this timewithAbraham.Weare told inGenesis18:1that“theLORDappearedtoAbrahambytheoaksofMamre.”Butwhentheepisodeisnarrated,we learn that “threemen” come to him (18:2). Abraham plays the good host and entertains them,preparingforthemaverynicemeal,whichtheyallthreeeat.Whentheytalktohimafterward,oneofthese three “men” is identified explicitly as “the LORD” (18:13). At the end of the story we areinformedthattheothertwowere“angels”(19:1).Soherewehaveacasewheretwoangelsandthe

LordGodhimselfhaveassumedhumanform—somuchsothattheyappeartoAbrahamtobethreemen,andtheyalleatthefoodhehasprepared.

ThemostfamousinstanceofsuchambiguityisfoundinthestoryofMosesandtheburningbush(Exod.3:1–22).Bywayofbackground:Moses,thesonofHebrews,hadbeenraisedinEgyptbythedaughterofPharaoh,buthehastoescapeformurderinganEgyptianandiswantedbythePharaohhimself.HegoestoMidianwherehemarriesandbecomesashepherdforhisfather-in-law’sflocks.One day,while tending to his sheeply duties,Moses sees an astonishing sight.We are told that hearrivesatMountHoreb(this isMountSinai,where later,after theexodus,he isgiven the law)andthere,“theangeloftheLORDappearedtohiminaflameoffireoutofabush”(Exod.3:2).Mosesisamazedbecausethebushisaflamebutisnotbeingconsumedbythefire.AnddespitethefactthatitistheAngeloftheLordwhoissaidtohaveappearedtohim,itis“theLord”whoseesthatMoseshascometothebush,anditis“God”whothencallstohimoutofthebush.Infact,theAngeloftheLordtellsMoses, “I am theGodofyour father, theGodofAbraham, theGodof Isaac, and theGodofJacob”(Exod.3:6).Asthestorycontinues,theLordGodcontinuestospeaktoMosesandMosestoGod.But inwhatsensewas it theAngelof theLord thatappeared tohim?Asahelpfulnote in theHarperCollins Study Bible puts it: “Although it was an angel that appeared in v. 2, there is nosubstantive difference between the deity and his agents.”3 Or as New Testament scholar CharlesGieschen has expressed it, this “Angel of the Lord” is “either indistinguishable from God as hisvisiblemanifestation”orheisadistinctfigure,separatefromGod,whoisbestowedwithGod’sownauthority.4

OtherAngelsasGodandHumanTherearenumerousotherexamplesbothintheBibleandinotherJewishtextsinwhichangelsaredescribedasGodand, justas important, inwhichangelsaredescribedashumans.Oneof themostinterestingisPsalm82.Inthisbeautifulpleathatjusticebedoneforthosewhoareweakandneedy,weare told, inv.1, that“Godhas takenhisplace in thedivinecouncil; in themidstof thegodsheholdsjudgment.”Here,GodAlmightyisportrayedashavingadivinecouncilaroundhim;theseareangelicbeingswithwhomGodconsults,ashappenselsewhereintheBible—mostfamouslyinJob1,wheretheSatanfigureishimselfreckonedamongthesedivinebeings.5IntheJobpassagethedivinebeingsmakingupGod’scouncilarecalled“sonsofGod.”HereinPsalm82theyarecalled“childrenoftheMostHigh.”Butmorethanthat,theyarecalled“Elohim”(82:6)—theHebrewwordfor“God”(it is a plural word;when not referring toGod, it is usually translated as “gods”). These angelicbeingsare“gods.”Hereinthepsalmtheyarerebukedbecausetheyhavenoconcernforpeoplewhoare lowly,weak,anddestitute.Becauseof thefailuresof these“gods,”Godbestowsupon themtheultimatepunishment:hemakesthemmortal,sothattheywilldieandceasetoexist(82:7).

Thusangelicbeings,childrenofGod,canbecalledgods.Andinavarietyof textswefindthatsuchbeingsbecomehuman.HereImightturntosomeinstancesoutsidetheBible.InaJewishtextthatprobablydatestothefirstChristiancentury,thePrayerofJoseph,wefindtheJewishancestorJacobspeaking in the first person and indicating that he is in fact an angel of God: “I, Jacob, who isspeakingtoyouamalsoIsrael,anangelofGod....IamthefirstbornofeverylivingthingtowhomGodgiveslife.”6“Uriel,theangelofGod,cameforthandsaidthatI,Jacob,descendedtoearthandtabernacled[dwelled ina tent]amongpeopleand that Ihavebeencalledby thenameJacob.”He isfurthercalled“thearchangelofthepoweroftheLord”andissaidtobethe“chiefcaptain”amongthesons ofGod.Here again, the chief angel appears as a human being on earth—in this case, as the

patriarchJacob,otherwiseknownfromthebookofGenesis.As a second example I turn to another Jewish book from about the same time, called the

Apocalypse of Abraham. This book describes a vision allegedly experienced by the patriarchAbraham, father of the Jews.Abrahamhears a voice but does not see anyonewho is speaking; inastonishment he falls to the ground, as if lifeless (10.1–2).Andwhile facedown on the ground hehears thevoiceofGodsaying toanangelnamedJaoel togoandstrengthenhim.Jaoelappears toAbraham“inthelikenessofaman”(10.4)andraisesandstrengthenshim.HetellsAbrahamthatheistheangelwhobringspeacetowarringfactionsinheavenandwhoworksmiraclesnotonlyonearth,but also in Hades, the realm of the dead.When Abraham looks at the angel, he sees a body likesapphire,afacelikechrysolite,hairlikesnow,arainbowonhishead,royalpurplegarments,andagoldenstaffinhishand(11.2–3).Herethenisamightyangel,whotemporarilybecomesincarnate,inordertoeffectGod’swillonearth—inthisinstancetobewithAbrahaminhisvariousactivitiesonearth.

HumansWhoBecomeAngelsOtherJewishtextsspeaknotonlyofangels(orevenGod)asbecominghuman,butalsoofhumanswho become angels.Many people today have the view that when people die, they become angels(well,atleastifthey’vebeen“good”).Thisisaveryoldbeliefindeed.Inthebookof2Baruch,oneofthegreatapocalypsesthathascomedowntousfromearlyJudaism(anapocalypseisavisionofheavenly secrets that canmake senseof earthly realities),we learn that righteousbelieverswill betransformed“intothesplendorofangels. . .fortheywill liveintheheightsofthatworldandtheywillbeliketheangelsandbeequaltothestars....Andtheexcellenceoftherighteouswillthenbegreaterthanthatoftheangels”(2Bar.51.3–10).7Here,then,thosewhoarerighteousbecomeangelswhoaregreaterthanotherangels—greatereventhanthestars,whichmanyancientpeoplebelievedtobefantasticallygreatangels.

SomeancientJewishtextsportrayparticularindividualsasbeingtransformedintoangelsatdeath.OneofthesupremelymysteriouscharactersintheHebrewBibleistheancientfigureEnoch.Wedonot learnmuch about him in the terse comments of theprincipal passage thatmentionshim in theHebrewBible,Genesis 5.We learn that hewas the father ofMethuselah, the oldestmanwho everlivedinscripture(969years,accordingtoGen5:27),andthegreat-grandfatherofNoah.Butwhatismost striking is thatwhenEnochwas365yearsold,hepassed from thisearth—butwithoutdying:“EnochwalkedwithGod; thenhewasnomore, becauseGod tookhim” (Gen. 5:24).This laconicstatement generated enormous speculations and speculative literature throughout ancient Judaism.Severalancientapocalypsesareattributed toEnoch.Whobetter toknowabout thefuturecourseofhistoryoroftheheavenlyrealmthanonewhowastransportedtoheavenwithoutdyingfirst?

Inabookcalled2Enoch,writtenpossiblyaroundthetimeofJesus,welearnoneopinionaboutwhathappenedtoEnochwhenhewastakenupintothedivinerealm(2En.22.1–10).WearetoldthathecameintothepresenceoftheLordhimselfanddidobeisancetohim.Godtellshimtostandupandsaystohisangels,“LetEnochjoininandstandinfrontofmyfaceforever.”8GodthentellstheangelMichael:“Go,andextractEnoch fromhisearthlyclothing.Andanointhimwithmydelightfuloil,andputhimintotheclothesofmyglory.”Michaeldoesso.Enochreflectsonhistransformationinthefirstperson:“AndIlookedatmyselfandIhadbecomelikeoneofhisgloriousones,andtherewasnoobservabledifference.”Asaresultof thisangelification, ifwecancall it that,Enoch’sfacebecamesobrightthatnoonecouldlookat it(37.2),andhenolongerneededtoeatorsleep(23.3;

56.2).Inotherwords,hebecameidenticaltoanangel.SomethingsimilarissaidtohavehappenedtoMoses.ThedeathofMosesisdescribedincryptic

termsintheBiblewherewelearnthathediedaloneandnooneeverknewthelocationofhisgrave(Deut.34:5–6).LaterJewishwritersmaintainedthathewastakenuptoheaventodwell.Andso,forexample,intheapocryphalbookofSirachwelearnthatGodmadeMoses“equalinglorytotheholyones,andmadehimgreat,totheterrorofhisenemies”(45.1–5).Hethusisequaltotheangels.Someauthors thinkofhimas evengreater than the angels, as in abookattributed to apersonknownasEzekieltheTragedian,whoindicatesthatMoseswasgivenascepterandsummonedtositonathrone,with a diadem placed on his head, so that the “stars” bowed down to him. Recall: stars wereconsideredsuperiorangels.HeretheybowdowninworshiptoMoses,whohasbeentransformedintoabeingevengreaterthanthey.

To summarize our findings to this point: theAngel of theLord is sometimes portrayed in theBibleasbeingtheLordGodhimself,andhesometimesappearsonearthinhumanguise.Stillotherangels—themembersofGod’sdivinecouncil—arecalledgodsandaremademortals.Andyetotherangelsmaketheirappearancesonearthinhumanform.Stillmoreimportant,someJewishtextstalkabout humans becoming angels at death—or even superior to angels andworthy ofworship. TheultimaterelevanceofthesefindingsforourquestionabouthowJesuscametobeconsidereddivineshould already begin to become apparent. In one of the important studies of early ChristianChristology,NewTestamentscholarLarryHurtadostatesakey thesis:“Ipropose theview that theprincipal angel speculation and other types of divine agency thinking . . . provided the earliestChristianswithabasicschemeforaccommodatingtheresurrectedChristnexttoGodwithouthavingtodepartfromtheirmonotheistictradition.”9Inotherwords,ifhumanscouldbeangels(andangelshumans),andifangelscouldbegods,andifinfactthechiefangelcouldbetheLordhimself—thentomakeJesusdivine,onesimplyneedstothinkofhimasanangelinhumanform.

DivineBeingsWhoBegetSemidivineBeingsINCHAPTER1WEsawacommonthemeinpaganmythology:divinemenwhowerebornoftheunionofamortal andagod (suchas the lustyZeus).There isnothingexactly like this inancient Jewishtexts, probably because such human passions as sexual desire and lust were regularly deemedcompletelyunsuitable for theGodof Israel.Angerandwrath,yes; sexual love,no.Especially if itinvolvedsuchscandalousactivitiesasrape.

ButthereissomethingroughlyanalogouseveninJudaism—notwithGodhimself,butwithsomeofhisdivineminions, thesonsofGod, theangels,whoareoccasionallysaid tohavehadsexwithmortalsandhadsuperhumanoffspring.Wefindthefirst intimationofsomesuchthingintheearlychaptersofGenesis.

InatantalizinglytersepassageinGenesis6,welearnthatthe“sonsofGod”lookeddownupontheearthandsawbeautifulwomenwhomtheydesired.“Andtheytookwivesforthemselvesofallthattheychose”(6:2).Morespecifically,“thesonsofGodwentintothedaughtersofhumans,whoborechildrentothem”(6:4).Godwasnotpleasedwiththisstateofaffairs,sohedecidedtolimithumanlife to120yearsand, immediatelyafterward,decidedfurther tobe ridof thewhole lotof thembybringingtheflood,whichonlyNoahandhisfamilysurvived.AndwhoweretheoffspringoftheseunionsofthesonsofGodandhumanwomen?Wearetoldthatthe“Nephilim”wereontheearthinthose days. These are the offspring, “the heroes thatwere of old,warriors of renown” (6:4). The

wordNephilimmeans“thosewhohavefallen.”InthebookofNumberstheyaresaidtohavebeenthegiantswhooriginally inhabited the landofCanaan(13:3).Puttingall this together,onecansee thatdivinebeings—thesonsofGod—hadsexwithwomenonearth,andtheirsemidivineoffspringweregiants.Iamcallingthem“semidivine”bothbecausetheywerebornoftheunionsofdivinebeingsandmortalsandbecausetheydonotactuallyliveintheheavenlyrealmlikeotherdivinities.Buttheyaresuperiortootherhumans—giantswhomadefantasticwarriors,forratherobviousreasons.Asasidenote,IthinkwecanassumethatinorderforthesonsofGodtomakethesewomentheirwives,theyhadtoassumehumanshape.Hereagain,then,wehavedivinebeingsappearingashumans;andwhatismore,wehavethemgeneratingyetothersuperhumanbeings.ThisisaJewishversionofthepaganmyths.

A fuller exposition of this account in the book of Genesis can be found in another JewishapocalypseattributedtothatmysteriousfigureofbiblicalhistoryEnoch.Thenoncanonicalbookof1Enoch isacomplicatedcollectionofdifferent texts thathavebeenspliced togetherby latereditors.Thefirstportionofthebook,calledtheBookoftheWatchers,compriseschapters1–36.Itoriginallyappearstohaveexistedindependentlyof1Enochitself;scholarstypicallydateittothethirdcenturyBCE.AgoodportionoftheBookoftheWatchersisanexpositionofthebriefbutsuggestiveepisodeaboutthesonsofGodinGenesis6;in1Enoch thesefiguresarecalledtheWatchers(chaps.6–16).UnlikeinGenesis6,heretheyarealsoexplicitlycalled“angels.”

Wearetoldthatthereweretwohundredoftheseerrantangels,andweactuallylearnthenamesoftheir leaders, such angelic greats as Semyaz,Ram’el, andTam’el. In this account the two hundreddescend to earth ontoMount Hermon, they each choose a wife, and they have sex with her. Theoffspringwhoresultaregiantsindeed:wearetoldthattheywere450feettall.Assuchhugebeings,thesegiantshaveravenousappetites;theyeventuallyrunoutoffoodandsostarteatinghumans.NowonderGodwasnotpleased.

The angelic beings, the Watchers, perform other illicit activities. They teach people magic,medicine,andastrology—someoftheforbiddenarts—andtheyinstructtheminmetallurgy,sotheycanmakebothjewelryandweapons.Threeoftheangelsupinheaven—Michael,Surafel,andGabriel—lookdown,seewhatishappeningonearth,andissueacomplainttoGodaboutit.Godrespondsbysendingthefloodtodestroythegiants(andeveryoneelse).TheWatchersarethenboundandcastintoapit inthedesertwheretheyaretoliveindarknessforseventygenerationsuntil theyaresentintoeternalfireonthedayofjudgment.Enochisinstructedtopronouncejudgmentuponthem:“youusedtobeholy,spiritual,thelivingones,possessingeternallife;butnowyouhavedefiledyourselveswithwomenandwith thebloodof the fleshofbegottenchildren,youhave lustedwith thebloodof thepeople”(5.4).10InthisJewishversion,thedivinebeingsarecondemnedfordoingwhatZeusdidinthepaganstories.

Thetextgoesontoexplainthat“nowthegiantswhoarebornfromtheunionofthespiritsandthefleshshallbecalledevilspiritsupontheearth....Evilspiritshavecomeoutoftheirbodies”(15.8–9).Thisappearstobeanexplanationofwherethebeingswhowerelatercalleddemonscamefrom.Andsoherewehaveaviewevencloser to thatfoundin thepaganmyths: theoffspringof theunionofdivine and human beings aremore divine beings—in this case the demonic forces that plague theworld.

OtherNonhumanDivineFigures

THERE ARE OTHER FIGURES—APART from God himself—who are sometimes described as divine inancient Jewish sources, both the Bible and later writings from near the time of Jesus and hisfollowers.Thefirst ismodeledonafigurefound inanenigmaticpassageofscripture,Daniel7,afigurethatcametobeknownas“theSonofMan.”

TheSonofManThebookofDanielissomethinglikeaHebrewBibleversionofthebookofRevelation—abookthatmodernfundamentalists thinksetsoutablueprintofhumanhistory,downtoourowntime.Criticalscholarsseeitassomethingverydifferentindeed,asabookofitsowntimeandplace.TheostensiblesettingofthebookofDanielisinthesixthcenturyBCE—althoughscholarshavelongbeenconvincedthatthebookwasnotactuallywrittenthen,butcenturieslaterinthesecondcenturyBCE.InthisbookDanielisportrayedasaJudeancaptivewhohasbeentakenintoexiletoBabylon,theworldempirethatdestroyedhishomelandin586BCE.Inchapter7Danieldescribesawildvisioninwhichheseesfourbeastsarisingoutofthesea,oneaftertheother.Eachisawe-inspiringandtrulyterrible,andtheywreakhavocontheearth.Thenhesees“onelikeasonofman”comingonthe“cloudsofheaven”(Dan.7:13).Hereisafigurethatisnotbeastly,butisinhumanform;andratherthancomingfromtheturbulentseaofchaos,hearrivesfromtherealmofGod.Thebeaststhathadcausedsuchdestructiononeartharejudgedandremovedfrompower,andthekingdomoftheearthisdeliveredovertotheone“likeasonofman.”

Daniel isunable tomakeheadsor tailsof thevision,but luckily—as typicallyhappens in theseapocalyptic texts thataredisclosingsublimeheavenly truths—anangel isstandingby to interpret itforhim.Thebeastseachrepresentakingdomthatwillcome,insuccessiontooneanother,toruletheearth.Attheend,afterthefourthbeast,ahumanlikeonewillbegivendominionovertheearth.Intheangel’sinterpretationofthevision,wearetoldthatthisdominionwillbegiventothe“peopleoftheholyonesof theMostHigh” (Dan.7:27).Thismaymean that just as thebeasts each represented akingdom, so too did the “one like a son of man.” The beasts were the successive kingdoms ofBabylonia,Media,Persia,andGreece,whichwouldeachachieveworlddomination.Theonelikeasonofman,then,wouldbethekingdomofIsrael,whichwillberestoredtoitsproperplaceandgivenauthorityoveralltheearth.Someinterpretershavethoughtthatsincethebeastscanalsobetakentorepresentkings(at theheadof thekingdoms),so too theone likeasonofman—possiblyhe isanangelicbeingwhoisheadofthenationofIsrael.11

However one interpretsDaniel in its original second-centuryBCE context, what is clear is thateventuallyinsomeJewishcirclesitcametobethoughtthatthis“onelikeasonofman”wasindeedafuturedeliverer,acosmicjudgeoftheearth,whowouldcomewithdivinevengeanceagainstGod’senemiesandwithaheavenlyrewardforthosewhohadremainedfaithfultohim.Thisfigurecametobeknownas “theSonofMan.”Nowhere is hedescribedmore fully than in thebookof1 Enoch,whichwehavealreadyconsideredinrelationtotheBookoftheWatchers(1En.1–36).TheSonofMan,ontheotherhand,isaprominentfigureinadifferentportionofthefinaleditionof1Enoch,chapters37–71,whichareusuallycalledtheSimilitudes.

TherearedebatesaboutthedateoftheSimilitudes.Somescholarsputthispartofthebookneartheendof thefirstcenturyCE;probablymoredate itearlier, toaroundthetimeofJesushimself.12Forourpurposesaprecisedateisnotparticularlyimportant.WhatmattersistheexaltedcharacteroftheSonofMan.ManygreatandgloriousthingsaresaidintheSimilitudesaboutthisperson—whonowisthoughtofasadivinebeing,ratherthan,say,asthenationofIsrael.Wearetoldthathewas

givenaname“evenbeforethecreationofthesunandthemoon,beforethecreationofthestars”(1En.48.2–3).Wearetoldthatalltheearthwillfalldownandworshiphim.BeforethecreationhewasconcealedinthepresenceofGodhimself;buthewasalwaysGod’schosenone,anditishewhohasrevealedGod’swisdomto therighteousandholy,whowillbe“savedinhisname,”since“it ishisgoodpleasurethattheyhavelife”(48.2–7).

At the endof time,whenall thedeadare resurrected, it ishe, the “ElectOne,”whowill sit onGod’s throne (51.3). From this “throne of glory” hewill “judge all theworks of the holy ones inheavenabove,weighinginthebalancetheirdeeds”(61.8).Hehimselfiseternal:“Heshallneverpassawayorperishbeforethefaceoftheearth.”And“allevilshalldisappearbeforehisface”(69.79).Hewill“removethekingsandthemightyonesfromtheirthrones.Heshallloosenthereinsofthestrongandcrushtheteethofsinners.Heshalldeposethekingsfromtheirthronesandkingdoms.Fortheydonotextolandglorifyhimandneitherdotheyobeyhim,thesourceoftheirkingship”(46.2–6).

Atonepointthiscosmicjudgeoftheearthiscalledthemessiah—atermwewillconsidermorefully in the next chapter. For now, it is enough to say that it comes from the Hebrew word foranointedandwasoriginallyusedofthekingofIsrael,God’sanointedone(i.e.,theonechosenandfavoredbyGod).NowtheruleranointedbyGodisnotameremortal;heisadivinebeingwhohasalwaysexisted,whositsbesideGodonhisthrone,whowilljudgethewickedandtherighteousattheendoftime.He,inotherwords,iselevatedtoGod’sownstatusandfunctionsasthedivinebeingwhocarries out God’s judgment on the earth. This is an exalted figure indeed, as exalted as one canpossiblybewithoutactuallybeingtheLordGodAlmightyhimself.ItisstrikingthatalateradditiontotheSimilitudes,chapters70–71,identifiesthisSonofManasnoneotherthanEnoch.Inthissomewhatlaterview,itisaman,ameremortal,whoisexaltedtothissupremepositionnexttoGod.13Asthisexaltedbeing,theSonofManisworshipedandglorifiedbytherighteous.

TheTwoPowersinHeavenEarlierIpointedoutthattheinjunctionsagainstworshipingangelsscatteredthroughoutearlyJewishtextssuggestthatindeedangelswereworshiped—otherwise,therewouldbenoreasontoforbidthepractice.Nowwe have seen that the Son ofMan alsowasworshiped.One could easily argue thatanyoneoranythingseatedbesideGodonathroneintheheavenlyrealmdeservesworship.Ifyou’rewilling to bow down and prostrate yourself in the presence of an earthly king, then surely it’sappropriatetodosointhepresenceofthecosmicjudgeoftheearth.

Inaninterestingandcompellingstudy,AlanSegal,ascholarofancientJudaism,arguesthatearlyrabbis were particularly concerned about a notion, which was evidently widespread in parts ofJudaism, thatalongwithGod inheaven therewasa secondpoweron thedivine throne.FollowingtheseJewishsources,Segalreferstothesetwo—Godandtheother—asthe“twopowersinheaven.”14TheSonofManfigurewhomwehavejustexaminedwouldbeonesuchdivinefigure,ashesharesthestatusandpowerofGod.But thereevidentlywereotherswhowerecandidatesfor thiscelestialhonor,andtherabbiswhowereconcernedaboutregulatingwhatJewsshouldthinkandbelievefoundsuch views unnerving, so much so that they went on the attack against them. Their attacks wereeffective,moreorlesssilencingthosewhoascribedtotheseviews.

Segal’s careful analysis shows that those who held to the “heretical” notion of two powersmaintained that the second powerwas either some kind of angel or amysticalmanifestation of adivine characteristic thought to be in some sense equal with God (discussed more below). Theysubscribed to this notion because of their interpretations of certain passages in the Bible, such as

those that describe theAngel of the Lord as bearing the divine name himself, orDaniel 7 and itsreferenceto“theonelikeasonofman”—afigureindependentofGodwhoisgiveneternalpoweranddominion.Yet other passages could lead to a “two-powers” doctrine, such asGenesis 1:26, inwhich God, in creating humans, says, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to ourlikeness.”WhyisGodspeakingintheplural:“us”and“our”?Accordingtothetwo-powersheresy,itwas because another divine figurewaswith him.This also could be the person that the “elders ofIsrael”sawsittingonthedivinethroneinExodus24:9–10.ThisfigureiscalledtheGodofIsrael,butthepeopleactuallysawhim.Elsewhere,evenwithinthebookofExodus,itisexplicitlystatedthatnoonecanseeGodandlive(Exod.33:20).YettheydidseeGodandtheydidlive.Theymust,then,haveseenthesecondpower,notGod.

Therabbisofthesecond,third,fourth,andfollowingcenturiesCEcondemnedanysuchnotionasaheresy.But,again,thefactthattheycondemneditshowsthatitwasaviewheldbyotherJews,andsincetherabbiscondemneditsothoroughly,itwasprobablyheldbyalargenumberofJews.Segalargues that this heresy can be traced back to the first Christian century and to Palestine itself. HemaintainsthatoneobvioustargetforsuchviewsweretheChristians,whoelevatedChrist—aswewillsee—to the level of God. But it wasn’t only Christians who held to the two-powers heresy. Non-ChristianJewsdidaswell,onthebasisoftheirinterpretationofpassagesfromtheHebrewBible.

DivineHypostasesScholars sometimes use technical terms for no good reason, other than the fact that they are thetechnicaltermsscholarsuse.WhenIwasingraduateschoolweusedtoask,wryly,whyweshoulduseaperfectlygoodEnglish termwhenwehadanobscureLatinorGerman term thatmeant thesamething?Buttherearesomeraretermsthatsimplydon’thavesatisfactory,simplewordsthatadequatelyexpress the same thing, and theword hypostasis (plural:hypostases) is one of them. Possibly theclosest common term meaning roughly the same thing would be personification—but even thatdoesn’tquitegetit,andittooisn’tawordyounormallyhearasyoustandinlineatthegrocerystore.

ThetermhypostasiscomesfromGreekandreferstotheessenceorsubstanceofsomething.InthecontextinwhichI’musingthetermhere,itreferstoafeatureorattributeofGodthatcomestotakeonitsowndistinctexistenceapartfromGod.Imagine,forexample,thatGodiswise.Thatmeanshehaswisdom.This in turnmeans thatwisdom is something thatGod“has”—that is, it is somethingindependentofGodthathehappenstohavepossessionof.Ifthat’sthecase,thenonecouldimagine“wisdom”asabeingapartfromGod;andsinceitisGod’swisdom,thenitisakindofdivinebeingalongsideGodthatisalsowithinGodaspartofhisessence,apartofwhoheis.

Asitturnsout,someJewishthinkersimaginedthatWisdomwasjustthat,ahypostasisofGod,anelementofhisbeingthatwasdistinctfromhiminonesense,butcompletelyhisinanother.WisdomwaswithGodasadivinebeingandcouldbethoughtofasGod(sinceitwaspreciselyhiswisdom).OtherhypostasesarediscussedinancientJewishwritings,buthereIrestrictmyselftotwo—Wisdomand what was sometimes thought of as the outward manifestation of Wisdom, the Word (Greek,Logos)ofGod.

WisdomThe idea thatWisdomcouldbeadivinehypostasis—anaspectofGod that isadistinctbeingfromGodthatnonethelessisitselfGod—isrootedinafascinatingpassageoftheHebrewBible,Proverbs8.Here,WisdomisportrayedasspeakingandsaysthatitwasthefirstthingGodcreated:

TheLordcreatedmeatthebeginningofhiswork,Thefirstofhisactsoflongago.

AgesagoIwassetup,atthefirst,beforethebeginningoftheearth...

Beforethemountainshadbeenshaped,beforethehills,Iwasbroughtforth.(8:22–23,25)

Andthen,onceWisdomwascreated,Godcreatedtheheavensandtheearth.Infact,hecreatedallthingswithWisdom,whoworkedalongsidehim:

Whenheestablishedtheheavens,Iwasthere,Whenhedrewacircleonthefaceofthedeep,

Whenhemadefirmtheskiesabove,Whenheestablishedthefountainsofthedeep...ThenIwasbesidehim,likeamasterworker;

AndIwasdailyhisdelight,Rejoicingbeforehimalways,

RejoicinginhisinhabitedworldAnddelightinginthehumanrace.(8:27–28,30–31)

Godmade all things in hiswisdom, somuch so thatWisdom is seen as a co-creator of sorts.Moreover,justasGodissaidtohavemadeallthingslive,sotoolifecomesthroughWisdom:

Forwhoeverfindsmefindslife,AndobtainsfavorfromtheLord;

Butthosewhomissmeinjurethemselves;Allwhohatemelovedeath.(8:35–36)

Thispassagecanberead,ofcourse,withoutthinkingofWisdomassomekindofpersonificationofanaspectofGodthatexistsapartfromandalongsidehim.Itcouldsimplybeametaphoricalwayof saying that the world is an astounding place and that the creation of it is rooted in the wiseforeknowledgeofGod,whomadeallthingsjustastheyoughttobe.Moreover,ifyouunderstandthewisdomofthewaythingsaremade,andliveinaccordancewiththisknowledge,youwillliveahappyandfulfilledlife.ButsomeJewishreadersreadthepassagemoreliterallyandtookWisdomtobeanactualbeingthatwasspeaking,abeingalongsideGodthatwasanexpressionofGod.

ThisviewledsomeJewishthinkers tomagnifyWisdomasadivinehypostasis.Nowhereis thisseenmoreclearlythaninabookoftheJewishApocryphacalledtheWisdomofSolomon.ThebookisattributedtoKingSolomonhimself—whoisacclaimedintheBibleasthewisestmanevertohavelived—butitwasactuallywrittenmanycenturiesafterhehadbeenlaidtorest.Especiallyinchapters7–9wefindapaeantoWisdom,whichissaidtobe“apureemanationofthegloryoftheAlmighty...forsheisareflectionofeternallight,aspotlessmirroroftheworkingofGod,andanimageofhisgoodness”(Wis.7:25–26;Wisdomisreferredtoas“she”—orevenas“LadyWisdom”—becausetheGreekwordforwisdomisfeminine);“sheisaninitiateintheknowledgeofGod,andanassociateinhisworks”(8:4).

HeretoowearetoldthatWisdom“waspresentwhenyou[God]madetheworld”(9:9)—butmorethan that, sheactually isbesideGodonhis throne (9:10). ItwasWisdomwhobrought salvation toIsraelat theexodusandafterwardthroughout thehistoryof thenation(chaps.10–11).Interestingly,WisdomissaidtohavedonenotonlywhattheHebrewBibleclaimsGoddid(creation;exodus),but

alsowhatthe“angel”ofGoddid—forexample,rescuingAbraham’snephewLotfromthefiresthatdestroyedSodomandGomorrahinGenesis19(10:6).

In a sense, then,Wisdomcouldbe seenas anangel, evenahighlyexaltedangel,or indeed theAngeloftheLord;butasahypostasisitissomethingsomewhatdifferent.ItisanaspectofGodthatisthoughttoexistalongsideGodandtobeworthy,asbeingGod’s,ofthehonorandesteemaccordedGodhimself.

TheWordInsomewaysthemostdifficultdivinehypostasistodiscussistheWord—inGreek,theLogos.That’sbecausethetermhadalong,distinguished,andcomplexhistoryoutsidetherealmofJudaismamongtheGreekphilosophers.Full treatmentof thephilosophical reflectionsonLogoswould requireanentire study,15 but I can say enough here to give an adequate background to its use in thephilosophical circles of Judaism, especially regarding the most famous Jewish philosopher ofantiquity,PhiloofAlexandria(20BCE–50CE).

The ancient Greek philosophers known as the Stoics had extensive discussions of the divineLogos. The word Logos doesmean “word”—as in the thing you speak—but it could carrymuchdeeperandricherconnotationsandnuances.Itis,obviously,thewordfromwhichwegettheEnglishtermlogic—andthat’sbecauseLogoscanalsomeanreason—asin,“there isareasonfor that”and“that view is quite reasonable.” Stoics believed that Logos—reason—was a divine element thatinfusedallofexistence.Thereis,infact,alogictothewaythingsare,andifyouwanttounderstandthisworld—andmoreimportant,ifyouwanttounderstandhowbesttoliveinthisworld—thenyouwillseektounderstanditsunderlyinglogic.Asitturnsout,thisispossiblebecauseLogosisnotonlyinherentinnature,itresidesinusashumanbeings.WeourselveshaveaportionofLogosgiventous,andwhenweapplyourmindstotheworld,wecanunderstandit.Ifweunderstandtheworld,wecanseehow to live in it. Ifwe follow throughon thatunderstanding,wewill indeed leadharmonious,peaceful, and enriched lives.But ifwedon’t figureout theway theworldworks and is, and ifwedon’tliveinharmonywithit,wewillbemiserableandnobetteroffthanthedumbanimals.

Thinkerswhosawthemselvesstandingdirectlyinthelineofthegreatfifth-centuryBCEPlatotookthe ideaof theLogos in a different direction. InPlatonic thinking, there is a sharpdividebetweenspiritualrealitiesandthisworldofmatter.God,inthisthinking,ispurespirit.Buthowcansomethingthatispurespirithaveanycontactwithwhatispurematter?Forthattohappen,somekindoflinkisneeded,somekindofgo-betweenthatconnectsspiritandmatter.ForPlatonists,theLogosisthisgo-between.The divineLogos iswhat allows the divine to interactwith the nondivine, the spiritwithmatter.

WehaveLogoswithinourmaterialbodies,sowetoocanconnectwiththedivine,eventhoughwearethoroughlyentrenchedinthematerialworld.Insomesense,thewaytohappinessandfulfillmentistoescapeourmaterialattachmentsandattaintospiritualheights.Amongotherthings,thismeansthatweshouldnotbetooattachedtothebodiesweinhabit.Webecomeattachedbyenjoyingphysicalpleasuresandthinkingthatpleasureistheultimategood.Butit’snot.Pleasuresimplymakesuslongformoreandkeepsusattachedtomatter.Weneedtotranscendmatterifwearetofindtruemeaningandfulfillment,andthismeansaccessingtheLogosoftheuniversewiththatpartoftheLogosthatiswithinus.

InsomerespectsitwasquitesimpleforJewishthinkerswhowereintimatelyfamiliarwiththeirscripturestoconnectthemwithsomeoftheseStoicandPlatonicphilosophicalideas.IntheHebrew

Bible,Godcreatesallthingsbyspeakinga“word”:“AndGodsaid,Lettherebelight.Andtherewaslight.”Creation happened bymeans ofGod uttering hisLogos. TheLogos comes fromGod, andsinceitisGod’sLogos,inasenseitisGod.Butonceheemitsit,itstandsapartfromGodasadistinctentity.Thisentitywassometimes thoughtofasapersondistinct fromGod.TheLogoscame tobeseeninsomeJewishcirclesasahypostasis.

AlreadyintheHebrewBiblethe“wordoftheLord”wassometimesidentifiedastheLordhimself(see, forexample,1Sam.3:1,6). In thehandsofPhiloofAlexandria,whowasheavily influencedespeciallybythePlatonictradition,theLogosbecameakeyfactorinunderstandingbothGodandtheworld.

Philomaintained that the Logoswas the highest of all beings, the image ofGod according towhichandbywhichtheuniverseisordered.God’sLogoswas,inparticular,theparadigmaccordingtowhichhumanswerecreated.ItiseasytoseeherethatLogosistakingonthefunctionalsoassignedtoWisdom,whichwasthoughttobethecreatorandorderingfactorofallthings.InsomesensetheLogosisinfact“born”ofWisdom.Ifwisdomissomethingthatpeoplehavewithinthemselves,thenLogos is the outward manifestation of the wisdom when the person speaks. And so, in thisunderstanding, Wisdom gives birth to Logos, which is, in fact, what Philo himself believed.Moreover,asthemindistothebody,sotheLogosistotheworld.

SincetheLogosisGod’sLogos,itisitselfdivineandcanbecalledbydivinenames.ThusPhilocallsLogos the “imageofGod” and the “NameofGod” and the “firstborn son” (e.g.,Agriculture51).16InoneplaceheindicatesthatGod“givesthetitleof‘God’tohischiefLogos”(Dreams1.230).Because the Logos isGod, andGod isGod, Philo sometimes speaks of “two gods” and in otherplacesspeaksofLogosas“thesecondGod”(QuestionsonGenesis2.62).ButthereisadifferenceforPhilo between “the God” and “a god” (in Greek between o theos—meaning “God”—and theos—meaning“god”).Logosisthelatter.

As a divine being apart fromGod, Logos obviously sounds a lot like the Angel of the Lorddiscussedat thebeginningof thischapter.And in fact,Philosometimesmaintained thatLogoswasindeedthisAngeloftheLord(e.g.,ChangingofNames87,Dreams239).WhenGodwasmanifesttohumans,itwashisLogosthatmadetheappearance.HereweseePhilo’sPlatonicthoughtatworkandcombining with his knowledge of scripture. God does not have direct contact with the world ofmatter;hiscontactwith theworld isbymeansofhisLogos.Goddoesnot speakdirectly tous;hespeakstousthroughhisLogos.

Insum,forPhilotheLogosisanincorporealbeingthatexistsoutsideGodbutishisfacultyofthinking;onoccasionitbecomestheactualfigureofGodwhoappears“likeaman”sothatpeoplecanknow,andinteractwith, itspresence.It isanotherdivinebeingthat isdistinctfromGodinonesense,andyetisGodinanother.

HumansWhoBecomeDivineFOR THOSEWHOWANT to know how Jesus could becomeGod in a Jewish religion that insisted onremainingmonotheistic, evenmore important are Jewish textswhich indicate that not just angels,hypostases,andotherdivineentitiescouldbecalledGod,buthumanscouldbeaswell.Asitturnsout,suchpassagescanbefoundevenintheBible.Justaswithinpagancirclestheemperorwasthoughttobeboththesonofgodand,insomesense,himselfgod,sotooinancientJudaismthekingofIsraelwasconsideredbothSonofGodand—astonishinglyenough—evenGod.

TheKingofIsraelThere is nothing controversial in the claim that the king of Israelwas thought of as standing in auniquely close relationship toGod andwas in that sense considered theSonofGod.This view isfoundscatteredthroughouttheHebrewBible.Akeypassageoccursin2Samuel7.Atthispointinthenarrative,Israelhasalreadyhadtwokings:thefirstking,treatedwithconsiderableambivalenceinthenarrative,Saul,andthegreatkingofIsrael’sgoldenage,David.DespiteDavid’smanyvirtues,hehadanumberofvicesaswell,andforthatreason,whenheexpressedhiswishtobuildatempleforGod,Godrefusedtoallowit.Thebackstoryisthatsincethedaysoftheexodus,morethantwocenturiesearlier,IsraelhadworshipedGodinaportablefacility,alargetent,thetabernacle.NowthatIsraelisfirmlyensconcedintheland,Davidwantstobuildapermanentdwellingplace,ahouse,forGod.ButGodtellshimno.Instead,hehimselfwillbuilda(metaphorical)“house”forDavid.Davidwillhaveason(referringtoSolomon)whowillbuildGod’stemple,andfromthissonGodwillraiseahouse—adynasty—toDavid.Moreover,thissonofDavidwillbechosenbyGodhimself,adoptedasitwere,tobehisownson:“Iwillraiseupyouroffspringafteryou,whoshallcomeforthfromyourbody,andIwillestablishhiskingdom.Heshallbuildahouseformyname;andIwillestablishthethroneofhiskingdomforever.Iwillbeafathertohim,andheshallbeasontome”(2Sam.7:12–14).

ThisideathatGodhasadoptedthekingtobehissonisconsonantwithotherusagesoftheterm“SonofGod”intheHebrewBible.Wehavealreadyseenthatangelicbeings,themembersofGod’sdivine council,were called sonsofGod.Theseweredivinebeingswho stood in a specially closerelationshipwithGodashisadvisors,servants,andministers—even ifsomeof themdidfall fromgrace on occasion, as in that little episode in Genesis 6. Moreover, the nation of Israel itself issometimescalledthe“SonofGod,”asinHosea11:1—“OutofEgyptIcalledmyson.”Hereagain,Israel isGod’s Son because it stands in a uniquely close relationshipwithGod and as such is theobjectofhisloveandspecialfavor;moreover,itisthroughIsraelthatGodmediateshiswillonearth.

Sotoowiththeking,whostandsattheheadofIsraelandsoinanevenmorespecialsenseis“the”SonofGod. InPsalm89, inwhich the psalmist indicates thatDavidwas anointed byGod (that is,literallyanointedwithoilasasignofGod’sspecialfavor;v.20),heissaidtobeGod’s“firstborn,thehighestofthekingsofearth”(v.27).EvenmoreremarkableisPsalm2,inwordsspokenbyGodtotheking,probablyathiscoronationceremony(whenhereceivedtheanointingwithoil):“Youaremy son; today I have begotten you” (v. 7). In this case the king is not only adopted byGod, he isactuallybornofGod.Godhasbroughthimforth.

Thesonofahumanishuman,justasthesonofadogisadogandthesonofacatisacat.AndsowhatisthesonofGod?Asitturnsout,tothesurpriseofmanycasualreadersoftheBible,therearepassagesinwhichthekingofIsraelisreferredtoasdivine,asGod.

HebrewBiblescholarJohnCollinspointsout that thisnotionultimatelyappears toderivefromEgyptianwaysofthinkingabouttheirking,thePharaoh,asadivinebeing.17EveninEgypt,wherethekingwasagod, itdidnotmean that thekingwasonaparwith thegreatgods, anymore than theRomanemperorwasthoughttobeonaparwithJupiterorMars.Buthewasagod.Aswehaveseen,inEgyptianandRomancircles, therewere levelsofdivinity,andso too inJewishcircles.ThuswefindhighlyexaltedtermsusedofthekingofIsrael,termsthatmaysurprisereaderswhothink—onthe basis of the kind of thinking that developed in the fourth Christian century—that there is anunbridgeablechasmbetweenGodandhumans.Nonetheless,hereitis,intheBibleitself,thekingiscalledbothLordandGod.

Forexample,Psalm110:1:“TheLORDsaystomyLord,‘SitatmyrighthanduntilImakeyour

enemiesyourfootstool.’”Thefirstterm,LORD—traditionallyprintedincapitallettersinEnglish—istheHebrewnameofGodYHWH,often spelledYahweh.The fourHebrew letters representing thatnamewereconsideredsospecialthatintraditionalJudaismtheywerenot(andarenot)pronounced.TheyaresometimescalledtheTetragrammaton(Greekfor“fourletters”).Thesecondterm,“Lord,”isadifferentword,adn(=adonai,oradoni),whichisacommontermfortheLordGodbutisalsoatermthatcouldbeused,forexample,byaslaveforhismaster.WhatisstrikinghereisthatYHWHisspeaking to“myLord”and tellinghimto“sitatmyrighthand.”AnybeingenthronedwithGodissharingtheglory,status,andhonorduetoGodhimself.Thereisnotaquestionofidentityorabsoluteparityhere—theking,sittingatGod’srighthand—isnotGodAlmightyhimself.Thatisclearfromwhatissaidnext:Godwillconquertheking’senemiesforhimandputthemunderhisfeet.Butheisdoingsoforonewhomhehasexalteduptothelevelofhisownthrone.ThekingisbeingportrayedasadivinebeingwholivesinthepresenceofGod,aboveallothercreatures.

Evenmore stark is Psalm 45:6–7, inwhich the king is addressed in the following remarkablyexaltedterms,asaGod:

Yourthrone,OGod,enduresforeverandever.Yourroyalscepterisascepterofequity;Youloverighteousnessandhatewickedness.

ThereforeGod,yourGod,hasanointedyouWiththeoilofgladnessbeyondyourcompanions.

It is clear that the person addressed as “O God” (Elohim) is not God Almighty but the king,becauseofwhatissaidlater:GodAlmightyistheking’sownGodandhas“anointed”himwithoil—thestandardactof theking’scoronationceremonyinancientIsrael.AndsoGodhasbothanointedandexalted thekingaboveallothers,even toa levelofdeity.Theking is insomesenseGod.NotequalwithGodAlmighty,obviously (since thedifferentiation ismadeclearly,evenhere),butGodnonetheless.

Ayetmoreastonishingexamplecomes in theprophet Isaiah,chapter9,whichcelebratesanewkingwho has been given to the people. Anyone who knowsHandel’sMessiah will recognize thewords;butunlikeinHandel,thepassageinitsoriginalcontextinIsaiahappearstobereferringnotmerelytothebirthoftheking,buttothebirthofthekingasthesonofGod—inotherwords, it isabouthiscoronation.Atthiscoronation,a“child”hasbeengiventothepeople—thatis,thekinghasbeenmadethe“sonofGod.”Butwhatissaidaboutthekingistrulyremarkable:

Forachildhasbeenbornforus,Asongiventous;

Authorityrestsuponhisshoulders;Andheisnamed

WonderfulCounselor,MightyGod[El],EverlastingFather,PrinceofPeace.

Hisauthorityshallgrowcontinually,Andthereshallbeendlesspeace

ForthethroneofDavidandhiskingdom.(Isa9:6–7)

ThatthispassageisreferringtothekingofIsraelisobviousbythefinalline.Thisisakingfromthe lineofDavid:most scholars think it isa reference to thekingat the timeof Isaiah’sprophecy,KingHezekiah.Heisacclaimedasthe“son”ofGod,onewithgreatauthorityandonewhowillbring

endlesspeace.Clearly,thispersonisnotGodAlmightyhimself,sincehisauthorityissaidto“growcontinually,”andonecanhardlyimagineGodnothavingfinal,ultimate,andcompleteauthorityfromtheoutset.Nonetheless,theepithetsdeliveredforthekingareastounding.Heiscalled“MightyGod”and“EverlastingFather.”AsthesonofGod,heisexaltedtothelevelofGodandsohasGod’sstatus,authority,andpower—somuchsothathecanbecalledGod.

MosesasGodItisinterestingtonotethatnotonlythekingofIsrael,humanashewas,islaudedwithdivinestatusandeventheterm“God,”butsotooinancientJewishtextswasthatgreatsaviorandlawgiverofthepeople,Moses.TherootofthistraditionisintheTorahitself,fromanintriguingpassageinExodus4. God is commissioning Moses to go to the Egyptian Pharaoh and demand that he set free theenslavedpeopleofIsrael.MosesresistsGod’sdemandsandsaysthatheisnotaneloquentspeakerbutis“slowofspeechandslowoftongue”(Exod.4:10).Goddoesnotaccepttheexcuse:hehimselfistheonewhogivesspeechtohumans.Mosescontinuestoresist,andGodfinallystrikesacompromise:Moses’sbrotherAaronwillaccompanyhim,andAaronwilldoallthetalking,basedonwhatMosesinstructshim.AndthenGodmakesthisremarkablestatement:“[Aaron]indeedshallspeakforyoutothepeople;heshallserveasamouthforyou,andyoushallserveasGodforhim”(Exod.4:16).Here,MosesisnotsaidactuallytobeGod,buthewillfunctionasGod.HewillbetheonewhotellsAaronGod’smessagetobedeliveredtoPharaoh,andinthatsensehewill“serveasGod.”

SomelaterJewstookthismessageastepfurtherandclaimedthatMoseswas,infact,divine.TheclearestexpressionofthisviewcomesintheworksoftheaforementionedPhiloofAlexandria.PhilowasdeeplyimbuedinGreekphilosophicalthought,aswehaveseen,andwasparticularlyinvestedinshowing how the Jewish scripture, if properly understood bymeans of allegorical, or figurative,modes of interpretation, presents and supports the teachings of the great Greek philosophers (orrather,howtheteachingsoftheGreekphilosophersarealreadyfoundintheHebrewBible).Judaism,forPhilo,presentedthebestofwhatthegreatestphilosophersoftheworldhadevertaught.

Philowashighlyprolific,andwestillhaveanumberofhiswritings, includingabiographyofMosesthatpraisesthegreatlawgiveroftheJewsasahighlylearnedandinsightfulman.IntheseandotherwritingsPhilocelebratesbothMosesandthedeeplyphilosophicallawthatheproclaimed.ForPhilo, Moses was “the greatest and most perfect man that ever lived” (Life of Moses 1.1). Ininterpretingthepassagelaidoutabove,Exodus4:16,PhiloindicatesthatMosesappearedtoothersasagod—buthewasnotreallyGodinessence(TheWorseAttackstheBetter161–62).Here,Philo isplayingwiththeideathattherearelevelsofdivinity.Infact,hethoughtthatthroughhislife,Moses“wasgraduallybecomingdivine”(SacrificesofAbelandCain9–10).SinceMoseswasaprophetandfriend of God, “then it follows that he would naturally partake of God himself and of all hispossessions as far as he had need” (Life ofMoses 1.156). That iswhy some people hadwonderedwhetherMosesdidnothaveamerelyhumanmindbutrather“adivineintellect”(LifeofMoses1.27).

IntheHebrewBible,MosesreceivesthelawdirectlyfromthehandofGod,ashealoneascendsMount Sinai to commune with God (Exod. 19–20). Philo maintained that because of Moses’scontemplationofGod,“healsoenjoyedanevengreatercommunionwiththeFatherandCreatoroftheuniverse”(LifeofMoses1.158).Asa result,Moseswas tobeGod’sheir:hewouldhaveashisinheritance “the whole world” (Life of Moses 1.157). Moreover, even though he was not GodAlmightyhimself,Moses,accordingtoPhilo,“wascalledthegodandkingofthewholenation”(LifeofMoses 1.158). Here thenwe seeMoses calledwhat the king of Israel is called—andwhat, in a

differentcontext,theemperoroftheRomanswascalled:god.Like other specially favored humans who had a particularly close relationship with God—so

closethatMoseshimselfcouldbeconsideredinsomesensedivine—attheendofhislifeMoseswashighlyexaltedbyGodandmadeimmortal:“Whenhewasabouttodepartfromhencetoheaven,totakeuphisabodethere,andleavingthismortallifetobecomeimmortal,havingbeensummonedbythe Father, who now changed him, having previously been a double being composed of soul andbody, into the nature of a single body, transforming himwholly and entirely into amost sun-likemind”(LifeofMoses2.228).

OrasPhilostatesevenmoreforcefullyelsewhere:“Havinggivenupandleftbehindallmortalkinds,heischangedintothedivine,sothatsuchmenbecomekintoGodandtrulydivine”(QuestionsonExodus 3.29).Here, then, is a close Jewish analogy towhatwehave found in pagan sources: apowerful,wise,andgreatmanrewardedafterhislifebybeingmadedivine.Attimes,PhilogoesevenfurtherandimaginesMosesasakindofpreexistentdivinebeingsenttoearthforatime:“Andevenwhen[God]senthimasaloantotheearthlysphereandcausedhimtodwellthere,hefittedhimwithnoordinaryexcellence,suchas thatwhichkingsandrulershave, . . .butheappointedhimasgod,placingallthebodilyregionandthemindwhichrulesitinsubjectionandslaverytohim”(Sacrifices8–10).

JewishDivineMenITMAYNOTHAVE comeas ahuge surprise to learn that paganswhoheld to a rangeofpolytheisticreligionssometimesimaginedthathumanscouldbedivineinsomesense.Itismoresurprising,formostpeople,tolearnthatthesameistruewithinJudaism.ItisabsolutelythecasethatbythetimeofJesusandhisfollowersmostJewswerealmostcertainlymonotheists.ButevenastheybelievedthattherewasonlyoneGodAlmighty, itwaswidelyheld that therewereotherdivinebeings—angels,cherubim,seraphim,principalities,powers,hypostases.Moreover,therewassomesenseofcontinuity—notonlydiscontinuity—betweenthedivineandhumanrealms.Andtherewasakindofspectrumofdivinity: theAngelof theLord,already inscripture,couldbebothanangelandGod.Angelsweredivine, and could beworshiped, but they could also come in human guise.Humans could becomeangels.Humanscouldbecalled theSonofGodorevenGod.Thisdidnotmeanthat theywere theOneGodwhocreatedheavenandearth;butitdidmeanthattheycouldsharesomeoftheauthority,status,andpowerofthatOneGod.

Thus,evenwithinastrictmonotheism,therecouldbeotherdivinebeingsandthepossibilityofagradationofdivinity.AndevenamongJewsatthetimeofJesustherewasnotasenseofanabsolutebreak,acompletedivide,anunbridgeablechasmbetweenthedivineandthehuman.So,ifonewantstoknowwhetheranangelcouldbethoughtofasagod,onehastoask,“inwhatsense?”Thesameistruewithhumans.Iftheking,orMoses,orEnochastheSonofMan,oranyoneelseissaidorthoughttobeGod,itneedstobeexplainedinwhatsensethisisthecase.IsthisapersonwhowasadoptedbyGodtobehisson?Whowasborntoahumanbydivineintervention?Whowasmadeintoanangel?WhowasexaltedtoGod’sthronetobehisco-ruler?Orsomethingelse?

Wewill have to ask such questionswhen exploring early Christian views of Jesus.Yes, Iwillargue,soonafterJesus’sdeath,thebeliefinhisresurrectionledsomeofhisfollowerstosayhewasGod. But in what sense? Or rather, in whatever senses—plural—since, as we will see, differentChristiansmeantdifferentthingsbyit.

Butbeforewegothere,weneedfirsttoexplorethemanJesushimself—thehistoricalJesus.Didhis followers think he was divine while he was still treading the dusty paths of Galilee? Did hehimselfthinkhewasdivine?

CHAPTER3

DidJesusThinkHeWasGod?

WHEN I ATTENDED Moody Bible Institute in the mid-1970s, every student was required, everysemester, to do some kind of Christian ministry work. Like most of my fellow students, I wascompletely untrained and unqualified to do what I did, but I think Moody believed in on-the-jobtraining.Andsoduringonesemesterwehadtodevotemaybetwotothreehoursaweekto“door-to-door evangelism,” trying to convert people cold-turkey, a fundamentalist version of theMormonmissionary,alsocarriedouttwo-by-two.AnothersemesterIwasalate-nightcounselorontheMoodyChristianradiostation.PeoplewouldcallupwithquestionsabouttheBibleorwithproblemsintheirlives,andIwould,well,givethem“alltheanswers.”Iwasallofeighteenyearsold.OnesemesterIwasachaplainduringoneafternoonaweekatCookCountyHospital.Iwaswayoutofmydepthwiththatone.

Then,whenIwasasenior,myroommateBillandIdecidedthatwewantedtodoourministryasyouthpastorsinachurch.ThroughMoody,wewerehookedupwithaterrificchurchinOakLawn,asouthern suburb of Chicago. It was Trinity Evangelical Covenant Church—part of a smalldenominationthatoriginatedasaSwedishpietistmovementthatsplitfromtheLutherans.

BillandIwenttothechurchonWednesdayevenings,Saturdayevenings,andalldaySundaystodotheyouthpastorsortsofthings—leadprayergroups,Biblestudies,socialevents,retreats,andsoon.Billdidthisforayear;IstayedonthroughmyfinaltwoyearsofcollegeatWheaton,andsodiditfor three years altogether. It was a great group of kids (high school and college). I still haveextremelyfondmemoriesofthosedays.

Thepastorofthechurchwaspious,wise,andenergetic,adynamicpreacherandarealcare-erforsouls.HisnamewasEvanGoranson,andforthreeyearshewasmymentor,teachingmetheropesofministry.MyonlyproblemwithPastorGoransonwasthatIthoughthewasashadetooliberal.(EvenBillyGrahamwastooliberalformeinthosedays.)Butasaminister,PastorGoransonwasoneofthemostlovingpeopleontheplanet,andhewasfarmorefocusedonhelpingpeopleinneed(therearealwayslotsoftheminanychurchofanysize)thaninfrettingandarguingaboutreligion.Andinfact,Inowknowhehadaverytraditional,conservativetheology.

Yearslater,whenIwasworkingonanadvanceddegreeatPrincetonTheologicalSeminary,thisformoftraditionaltheologyhadcometoseemlessthansatisfyingtome,asIhadbeguntoentertaindoubtsaboutsomeofthemostfundamentalaspectsofthefaith,includingthequestionofthedivinityof Jesus. During those intervening years I had come to realize that Jesus is hardly ever, if at all,explicitlycalledGodintheNewTestament.IrealizedthatsomeoftheauthorsoftheNewTestamentdonotequateJesuswithGod.IhadbecomeimpressedwiththefactthatthesayingsofJesusinwhichheclaimedtobeGodwerefoundonlyintheGospelofJohn,thelastandmosttheologicallyloadedofthefourGospels.IfJesusreallywentaroundcallinghimselfGod,wouldn’ttheotherGospelsatleastmentionthefact?Didtheyjustdecidetoskipthatpart?

In the throesofmy theologicaldoubt, I returned toChicago tovisitTrinityChurchandPastor

Goranson. I remember themomentvividly.Weweredriving inhiscar,and Ibegan to tellhim thedoubts Iwas having about theBible and aboutwhat I had formerly held to be sacrosanct.Hewassympathetic,sincehehadalwaysbeenabitmore liberalandawhole lot lessdoctrinaire.Hisviewwasthatwesimplyhadtoholdontothebasics.HetoldmetorememberthatJesushadsaid,“Iamtheway, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but byme” (John 14:6). Thatwas all thatmattered.

ThenIaskedhim,“ButwhatifJesusneversaidthat?”Hewastakenabackandstunned,and,goodpastorthathewas,tearsstartedtowellupinhiseyes.Ithurtmetosee,butwhatcouldIdo?Youcan’tbelievesomethingjustbecausesomeoneelsedesperatelywantsyouto.

Thequestioninthischapteris,DidJesussaythat?Orotherthingsthatareattributedtohim?DidheclaimtobetheonewhocamedownfromheavenwhocouldleadpeoplebacktotheFather?Didheclaimthathepreexisted?DidheclaimthathewasequalwithGod?Ifhedid,thenthereisaverygoodreason thathis followersdid soaswell—this iswhathe taught them.But ifhedidnotclaim tobeGod,thenweneedtofindsomeotherexplanationforwhyhisfollowersdidsolater,afterhisdeath.

TheHistoricalJesus:ProblemsandMethodsFORANEXHAUSTIVESTUDYofthehistoricalJesus,wewouldneednotjustanentirebook,butawholeseries of books, such as the massive and impressive four-volume (and counting) set by NewTestamentscholarandNotreDameprofessorJohnMeier,AMarginalJew.For readerswhoprefersomethingshorterandquicker,thereismybookJesus:ApocalypticProphetoftheNewMillennium,orsuperbtreatmentsbysuchstalwartsasE.P.Sanders,GezaVermes,DaleAllison,PaulaFredriksen,andmanyothers.1Thesebooksallvaryinanumberofways,innosmallpartbecausetheirauthorsare so different from one another in religious persuasion (or lack of persuasion), personality,background,andtraining.Butonethingtheyallagreeon:Jesusdidnotspendhisministrydeclaringhimselftobedivine.

Thereasonweneedbooksliketheseisthat theGospelscannotsimplybetakenatfacevalueasgiving us historically reliable accounts of the things Jesus said and did. If theGospelswere thosesortsoftrustworthybiographiesthatrecordedJesus’slife“asitreallywas,”therewouldbelittleneedforhistoricalscholarship thatstresses theneed to learn theancientbiblical languages(HebrewandGreek), that emphasizes the importanceof Jesus’s historical context in his first-centuryPalestinianworld,andthatmaintainsthatafullunderstandingofthetruecharacteroftheGospelsashistoricalsourcesisfundamentalforanyattempttoestablishwhatJesusreallysaidanddid.AllwewouldneedtodowouldbetoreadtheBibleandacceptwhatitsaysaswhatreallyhappened.That,ofcourse,isthe approach to the Bible that fundamentalists take. And that’s one reason why you will not findfundamentalistsattheforefrontofcriticalscholarship.

InafewshortparagraphsIwanttoexplainbothwhycriticalscholarsthinkdifferentlyandwhatapproaches to the Gospels they have urged, in view of the fact that the New Testament does notprovidestenographicrecordsofJesus’swordsorpicture-perfectaccountsofhislife.

ProblemswiththeGospelsThefirst thing tostress is that ifwewant toknowaboutanyfigurefromthepast,weneedtohavesourcesofinformation.Thismayseemobviousenough,butforsomereason,whenitcomestoJesus,

peopleseemtothinkthattheysimplyknowwhohewas,whathesaid,orwhathedid—almostasiftheygainedthisknowledgebyosmosisfromtheenvironment.Infact,however,anythingyouknowaboutJesus,orthinkyouknow,hascometoyoufromasource—eithersomeonehastoldyou,oryouhavereadwhatsomeonehaswritten.Butwheredid thesepeopleget their information,whatmakesthem authorities, andwhy should you think they are right? Every story about Jesus (or any otherhistoricalfigure)eitherishistoricallyaccurate(somethinghereallysaidordid)orismadeup,orisacombinationofthetwo.AndtheonlywaytoknowwhetheradetailfromJesus’slifeishistoricallyaccurate is to investigate our sources of information. The sources available to you,me, and yourSundayschoolteacherareallthesame.StoriesaboutJesushavecirculatedbywordofmouthandinwriting sincehe livedanddied.Obviously, stories thatbegan tobe told lastyear for the first timeweremadeup.Sotoothestoriesthatfirstbegantocirculateahundredyearsago.Whatwewant,ifwewanthistoricallyreliableaccounts,aresourcesthatcanbetracedbacktoJesus’sowntime.Wewantancientsources.

Wedo,ofcourse,haveancientsources,buttheyarenotasancientaswewouldlike.OurveryfirstChristian author is theApostle Paul,whowaswriting twenty to thirty years after Jesus’s death.AnumberofPaul’slettersareincludedintheNewTestament.OtherChristianauthorsmayhavebeenwritingearlierthanPaul,butnoneoftheirworkssurvive.TheproblemswithPaularethathedidn’tactually know Jesus personally and that he doesn’t tell us very much about Jesus’s teachings,activities,orexperiences.IsometimesgivemystudentsanassignmenttoreadthroughallofPaul’swritingsandlisteverythingPaul indicatesJesussaidanddid.Mystudentsaresurprisedtofindthattheydon’tevenneedathree-by-fivecardtolistthem.(Paul,bytheway,neversaysthatJesusdeclaredhimselftobedivine.)

Our next earliest sources of information about the historical Jesus are theGospels of theNewTestament.Asitturnsout,theseareourbestsources.TheyarebestnotbecausetheyhappentobeintheNewTestament,butbecausetheyarealsotheearliestnarrativesofJesus’slifetosurvive.Buteventhoughtheyarethebestsourcesavailabletous,theyreallyarenotasgoodaswemighthope.Thisisforseveralreasons.

Tobeginwith,theyarenotwrittenbyeyewitnesses.WecallthesebooksMatthew,Mark,Luke,andJohnbecausetheyarenamedaftertwoofJesus’searthlydisciples,MatthewthetaxcollectorandJohnthebeloveddisciple,andtwooftheclosecompanionsofotherapostles,MarkthesecretaryofPeterand Luke the traveling companion of Paul. But in fact the books were written anonymously—theauthorsneveridentifythemselves—andtheycirculatedfordecadesbeforeanyoneclaimedtheywerewrittenbythesepeople.Thefirstcertainattributionofthesebookstotheseauthorsisacenturyaftertheywereproduced.

There are good reasons for thinking that noneof these attributions is right. For one thing, thefollowersofJesus,aswelearnfromtheNewTestamentitself,wereuneducatedlower-classAramaic-speaking Jews fromPalestine.Thesebooks arenotwrittenbypeople like that.Their authorswerehighlyeducated,Greek-speakingChristiansofalatergeneration.TheyprobablywroteafterJesus’sdiscipleshadall,oralmostall,died.Theywerewritingindifferentpartsoftheworld,inadifferentlanguage, and at a later time.There’s notmuchmystery aboutwhy laterChristianswouldwant toclaimthattheauthorswereinfactcompanionsofJesus,oratleastconnectedwithapostles:thatclaimprovidedmuchneededauthorityfortheseaccountsforpeoplewantingtoknowwhatJesuswasreallylike.

Scholars typically date the New Testament Gospels to the latter part of the first century.Most

everyonewouldagreethatJesusdiedsometimearound30CE.MarkwasthefirstGospeltobewritten,probablyaround65–70CE;MatthewandLukewerewrittenabout fifteen to twentyyears after that,say,80–85CE;andJohnwaswritten last,around90–95CE.What issignificanthere is the timegapinvolved.TheveryfirstsurvivingaccountofJesus’s lifewaswrittenthirty-fivetofortyyearsafterhis death. Our latest canonical Gospel was written sixty to sixty-five years after his death. That’sobviouslyalotoftime.

IftheauthorswerenoteyewitnessesandwerenotfromPalestineanddidnotevenspeakthesamelanguageasJesus,wheredidtheygettheirinformation?Hereagain,thereisnotalotofdisagreementamongcriticalscholars.AfterJesusdied,hisfollowerscametobelievehewasraisedfromthedead,andtheysawitastheirmissiontoconvertpeopletothebeliefthatthedeathandresurrectionofJesuswerethedeathandresurrectionofGod’smessiahandthatbybelievinginhisdeathandresurrectionapersoncouldhaveeternal life.TheearlyChristian“witnesses” toJesushadtopersuadepeople thatJesusreallywasthemessiahfromGod,andtodothattheyhadtotellstoriesabouthim.Sotheydid.They told stories aboutwhat happened at the end of his life—the crucifixion, the empty tomb, hisappearances to his followers alive afterward. They also told stories of his life before those finalevents—whathetaught,themiraclesheperformed,thecontroversieshehadwithJewishleaders,hisarrestandtrial,andsoon.

Thesestoriescirculated.AnyonewhoconvertedtobecomeafollowerofJesuscouldanddidtellthe stories. A convert would tell his wife; if she converted, she would tell her neighbor; if sheconverted, she would tell her husband; if he converted, he would tell his business partner; if heconverted,hewouldtakeabusinesstriptoanothercityandtellhisbusinessassociate;ifheconverted,hewouldtellhiswife;ifsheconverted,shewouldtellherneighbor...andonandon.Tellingstorieswastheonlywaytocommunicateinthedaysbeforemasscommunication,nationalmediacoverage,andevensignificantlevelsofliteracy(atthistimeonlyabout10percentofthepopulationcouldreadandwrite,somostcommunicationwasoral).

Butwho, then,was telling the stories about Jesus? Just the apostles? It can’t have been just theapostles.Justthepeoplewhomtheapostlesauthorized?Noway.Justpeoplewhocheckedtheirfactstomakesuretheydidn’tchangeanyofthestoriesbutonlyrecountedeventsthatreallyhappenedandastheyhappened?Howcouldtheydothat?Thestorieswerebeingtoldbywordofmouth,yearafteryear,decadeafterdecade,amonglotsofpeopleindifferentpartsoftheworld,indifferentlanguages,and therewas noway to controlwhat one person said to the next about Jesus’swords and deeds.Everyone knowswhat happens to stories that circulate thisway.Details get changed, episodes getinvented,eventsgetexaggerated,impressiveaccountsgetmadeevenmoreimpressive,andsoon.

Eventually,anauthorheardthestoriesinhischurch—sayitwas“Mark”inthecityofRome.Andhewrotehisaccount.AndtenorfifteenyearslateranotherauthorinanothercityreadMark’saccountanddecidedtowritehisown,basedpartiallyonMarkbutpartiallyonthestorieshehadheardinhisowncommunity.AndtheGospelsstartedcomingintoexistence.

Those are theGospelswe now have. Scholars for three hundred years andmore have studiedtheminminutedetail,andoneoftheassuredresultsofthisintensiveinvestigationisthecertaintythattheGospelshavenumerousdiscrepancies,contradictions,andhistoricalproblems.2Whywouldthatbe?Itwouldbebettertoask,“Howcouldthatnotbe?”Ofcourse,theGospelscontainnonhistoricalinformationandstories thathavebeenmodifiedandexaggeratedandembellished.ThesebooksdonotcontainthewordsofsomeonewhowassittingatJesus’sfeettakingnotes.Theyarenothinglikethat.Theyarebooksthatareintendingtotellthe“goodnews”ofJesus(thewordgospelmeans“good

news”).Thatis,theirauthorshadavestedinterestbothinwhattheyweretellingandinhowtheyweretelling it.Theywanted topreachJesus.Theywerenot trying togivebiographical information thatwould pass muster among critical historians living two thousand years later who have developedsignificantly different standards ofwriting history, orhistoriography. Theywerewriting for theirowndayandweretryingtoconvincepeopleaboutthetruth—astheysawit—aboutJesus.Theywerebasing their stories on what they had heard and read.What they had read was based on what theauthorsoftheseotherwritingshadheard.Itallgoesbacktooraltradition.

Some people today claim that cultures rooted in oral tradition are far more careful to makecertain that traditions that are told and retold are not changed significantly. This turns out to be amodernmyth,however.Anthropologistswhohavestudiedoralculturesshowthatjusttheoppositeisthecase.Onlyliterarycultureshaveaconcernforexactreplicationofthefacts“astheyreallyare.”Andthisisbecauseinliterarycultures,itispossibletocheckthesourcestoseewhethersomeonehaschangedastory.Inoralcultures, it iswidelyexpectedthatstorieswill indeedchange—theychangeanytime a storyteller is telling a story in a new context.Newcontexts require newways of tellingstories.Thus,oralcultureshistoricallyhaveseennoproblemwithalteringaccountsastheyweretoldandretold.3

Soofcoursetherearediscrepancies,embellishments,made-upstories,andhistoricalproblemsintheGospels.Andthismeansthattheycannotbetakenatfacevalueasgivingushistoricallyaccurateaccountsofwhatreallyhappened.DoesthismeanthattheGospelsareuselessashistoricalsources?No, itmeans thatweneed tohave rigoroushistoricalmethods tohelpusexaminebooks thatwerewrittenforonepurpose—toproclaimthe“goodnews”ofJesus—toachieveadifferentpurpose: toknowwhatJesusreallysaidanddid.

MethodsHereIcangiveonlyabriefsummaryofthemethodsthatNewTestamentscholarshavedevisedfordealing with sources of this kind. I should stress that the Gospels are in fact virtually our onlyavailablesources.4WedonothaveanyaccountsofJesusfromGreekorRoman(pagan)sourcesofthe firstcentury,nomentionevenofhisnameuntilmore thaneightyyearsafterhisdeath.Amongnon-ChristianJewishsourceswehaveonlytwobriefcommentsbytheJewishhistorianJosephus.WedohaveotherGospelsfromoutsidetheNewTestament,butthesewereallwrittenlaterthantheNewTestamentGospelsandasarulearehighlylegendaryincharacter.ThereareacoupleofGospelsthatmayprovideuswithsomeadditionalinformation—suchastheGospelofThomasandtheGospelofPeter,bothdiscoveredinmoderntimes—butattheendofthedaytheyactuallydonotgiveusmuch.AndsowemoreorlesshaveourfourGospels.

Nearly everyone agrees that even though these canonical Gospels are highly problematic assourcesforthehistoricalJesus,theynonethelessdocontainsomehistoricallyaccuraterecollectionsofwhathesaid,did,andexperiencedamidalltheembellishmentsandchanges.Thequestionishowtoferretoutthehistoricallyaccurateinformationfromthelateralterationsandinventions.

Scholarshavedeterminedthatsomeofourwrittenaccountsareindependentofoneanother—thatis, they inherited all or some of their stories from independent streams of oral transmission. It iswidelythought,forexample,thattheGospelofJohndidnotrelyontheotherthreeGospelsforitsinformation.Theotherthree,Matthew,Mark,andLuke,arecalledtheSynopticGospelsbecausetheyare somuchalike.Theword synopticmeans “seen together”: these three canbeplaced in parallelcolumnsonthesamepageandbeseentogether,becausetheytellsomanyofthesamestories,usually

inthesamesequenceandofteninthesamewords.Thisisalmostcertainlybecausetheauthorswerecopyingeachother,orrather—asscholarsarealmostuniversallyconvinced—becausetwoofthem,MatthewandLuke,copiedtheearlierMark.ThatiswhereMatthewandLukegotalotoftheirstories.ButtheyshareotherpassagesnotfoundinMark.MostoftheseotherpassagesaresayingsofJesus.Since the nineteenth century, scholars have mounted formidable arguments that this is becauseMatthewandLukehadanother sourceavailable to them thatprovided themwith thesenon-Markanpassages.Sincethisothersourcewasmainlymadeupofsayings,these(German)scholarscalledittheSayings Source. Theword for source inGerman isQuelle, and so scholars today speak about“Q”—thelostsourcethatprovidedMatthewandLukewithmuchoftheirsayingsmaterial.

Matthew has stories not found in any of the other Gospels, and he obviously got them fromsomewhere, so scholars talk about hisM source. So too Luke has unique stories, and the allegedsourcetheniscalledL.MandLmayhaveeachbeenasinglewrittendocument;theymayhavebeenmultiplewrittendocuments; theymayhavebeenacombinationofwrittenandoralsources.Butforsimplicity’ssake,theyarejustcalledMandL.

And so among our Gospels we have not only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (and, say, theGospels of Thomas and Peter); we also can isolate Q, M, and L. These three were probablyindependentofeachotherandindependentofMark,andJohnwasindependentofallofthem.

Inotherwordswehavenumerousstreamsoftraditionthatindependentlyallgoback,ultimately,tothelifeofJesus.Inlightof thisfact—takenasafactbyalmostallcriticalscholars—weareinapositiontoevaluatewhichoftheGospelstoriesaremorelikelytobeauthenticthanothers.Ifastoryisfoundinseveraloftheseindependenttraditions,thenitisfarmorelikelythatthisstorygoesbackto the ultimate source of the tradition, the life of Jesus itself. This is called the criterion ofindependentattestation.Ontheotherhand,ifastory—asaying,adeedofJesus—isfoundinonlyonesource,itcannotbecorroboratedindependently,andsoitislesslikelytobeauthentic.

Letmegiveacoupleofexamples.ThereisareferencetoJohntheBaptist—afieryapocalypticpreacher—incloseassociationwithJesusinMark,John,andQ,allindependently.Conclusion?JesusprobablyassociatedwithJohntheBaptist,afieryapocalypticpreacher.Oranobviousone:Jesusissaid to havebeen crucifiedunderPontiusPilate in bothMark and John, and there are independentaspectsofthestoryreportedinMandL.Andsothat’sprobablywhathappened:hewascrucifiedonorderoftheRomangovernorPilate.Ortakeacounterexample.WhenJesuswasborn,wearetoldinMatthew (this comes fromM) that wise men followed a star to come worship him as an infant.Unfortunately, this story is not corroborated byMark,Q, L, John, or anything else. Itmight havehappened, but it can’t be established as having happened following the criterion of independentattestation.

A second criterion is predicated on the fact that the accounts found in all these independentsourcescamedowntotheirauthorsthroughtheoraltradition,inwhichthestorieswerechangedintheinterestsofthestorytellers—astheyweretryingtoconvertothersortoinstructthosewhowereconvertedinthe“true”viewofthings.Butifthat’sthecase,thenanystoriesintheGospelsthatdonotcoincidewithwhatweknowtheearlyChristianswouldhavewantedtosayaboutJesus,orindeed,anystories that seem to rundirectlycounter to theChristians’ self-interests in telling them,canstakeahigh claim to being historically accurate. The logic should be obvious.Christianswould not havemadeupstoriesthatworkagainsttheirviewsorinterests.Iftheytoldstorieslikethat,itwassimplybecausethat’sjustthewaysomethingactuallyhappened.Thismethodologicalprincipleissometimescalled thecriterionof dissimilarity. It states that if a tradition about Jesus is dissimilar towhat the

earlyChristianswouldhavewantedtosayabouthim,thenitmorelikelyishistoricallyaccurate.Letme illustrate. Jesus is said to havegrownup inNazareth inMark,M,L, and John; so it is

multiply attested. But it also is not a story that a Christian would have been inclined tomake up,becauseitprovedtobeanembarrassmenttolaterChristians.Nazarethwasasmallvillage—ahamlet,really—thatnoonehadeverheardof.Whowould invent the idea that theSonofGodcame fromthere?It’shardtoseeanyreasonforsomeonetomakeitup,soJesusprobablyreallydidcomefromthere.Asecondexample: the ideathatJesuswasbaptizedbyJohntheBaptistproveddiscomfortingforChristians,becauseJohnwasbaptizingpeopletoshowthattheirsinshadbeenforgiven(“fortheremissionofsins,”astheNewTestamentputsit).Moreover,everyoneknewintheearlychurchthatthe person doing the baptizing was spiritually superior to the person being baptized.Who wouldmakeupastoryoftheSonofGodbeingbaptizedbecauseofhissins,orinwhichsomeoneelsewasshowntobehissuperior?Ifnoonewouldmakeupthestory,whydowehaveit?BecauseJesusreallywasbaptizedbyJohn.Ortakeacounterexample.InMark,JesusthreetimespredictsthathehastogotoJerusalem,berejected,becrucified,andthenberaisedfromthedead.Canyouimagineareasonthat a Christian storyteller might claim that Jesus said such things in advance of his passion? Ofcourseyoucan.LaterChristianswouldnothavewantedanyonetothinkJesuswascaughtoffguardwhenheendedupbeingarrestedandsenttothecross;theymaywellhavewantedhimtopredictjustwhat was going to happen to him. These predictions show both that he was raised—as Christiansbelieved—andthatheknewhewasgoingtoberaised—astheyalsobelieved.SincethisispreciselythekindofstoryaChristianwouldwanttomakeup,wecannotestablishthatJesusreallymadethesekinds of predictions. He may have done so, but following this methodological principle ofdissimilarity,thesepredictionscannotbeshowntohavehappened.

Finally,scholarsareespeciallykeentoconsiderwhethertraditionsaboutJesuscanactuallyfitinafirst-centuryPalestinianJewishcontext.Someof the laterGospelsfromoutsidetheNewTestamentportrayJesus teachingviewsthatarestarklydifferentfromwhatwecanplausiblysituate inJesus’sownhistoricalandculturalmilieu.Suchteachingscannotobviouslybeacceptedasonesthatafirst-centuryPalestinianJewwouldhavespoken.Thisiscalledthecriterionofcontextualcredibility.

ThisfinalcriterioninsiststhatweunderstandJesus’shistoricalcontextifwewanttounderstandwhathesaidanddidduringhislife.Anytimeyoutakesomethingoutofcontext,youmisunderstandit.Forsituatinganyhistoricalpersonage,contextiseverything.Andso,beforeproceedingfurther,IneedtosayafewthingsaboutJesus’scontextandthenaboutwhatwecanknowabouthismessageandproclamation fromwithin that context, applying themethods I have just recounted, in order to seewhetherhetalkedabouthimselfasGod.

Jesus’sHistoricalandCulturalContextINBROADESTTERMS,JESUSneedstobeunderstoodasafirst-centuryJew.InChapter2,IdiscussedthebasicreligiousviewsofJudaismatthetime.LikemostJews,Jesuswouldhavebelievedthattherewasone trueGod, the creatorofheavenandearth,whohadchosen Israel tobehis special people andgiventhemhislaw.KeepingthelawofMoseswouldhavebeenofparamountimportancetoJesus,asitwastoallreligiousJewsofhistime.LatercontroversiesarereportedintheGospelswhenJesusissaidtohaveviolatedthelaw—forexample,thelawofSabbath—butinfactitisverydifficulttofindanyinstanceinwhichheactuallydidwhat thelawforbade.Whatheviolatedwastheunderstandingand interpretationof the lawbyother Jewish leaders of his day, especially thePharisees,whohad

developedcomplexrulestobeadoptedinordertobesurethelawwaskept.MostJewsdidn’tfollowthese additional rules, and Jesusdidn’t either.To that extent hewasprobably likemost Jews. (ThePhariseeswerenot hypocritical indeveloping these rules: they simplybelieved that one shoulddoeverything possible to do what God had required and so formulated policies to help make thathappen.)5

One of the most important aspects of Judaism for understanding the historical Jesus is awidespreadworldviewsharedbymanyJewsofhistimethatscholarshavecalledapocalypticism.Thisterm comes from the word apocalypse, which means a “revealing” or an “unveiling.” JewishapocalypticistsbelievedthatGodhadrevealedtothemtheheavenlysecretsthatcouldmakesenseofearthlyrealities.Inparticular,theywereconvincedthatGodwasverysoontointerveneinthisworldofpainandsufferingtooverthrowtheforcesofevilthatwereincontrolofthisage,andtobringinagoodkingdomwheretherewouldbenomoremiseryorinjustice.ThisapocalypticworldviewiswellattestedfromJewishsourcesaroundthetimeofJesus:itisaviewthatisprominentamongtheDeadSeaScrolls—acollectionofwritingsdiscoveredin1947,producedbyJewsfromaboutthetimeofJesusandnotfarfromwherehelived—andamongotherJewishtextsnotintheBible;itwastheviewofJohntheBaptist;itwastheviewofthePharisees;itwastheviewwidelyheldthroughoutJesus’sworld. Here I summarize four of themajor tenets of this view, before showing that Jesus almostcertainlyheldthisviewhimself.

DualismJewishapocalypticistsweredualists—bywhichImeanthattheybelievedthereweretwofundamentalcomponentsofreality:theforcesofgoodandtheforcesofevil.God,ofcourse,wasinchargeofallthatwasgood;butfortheseJews,Godhadapersonalopponent,thedevil,whowasinchargeofallthatwasevil.Godhadangelsonhisside;thedevilhadhisownevilspiritsonhis.Godhadthepowertogivelifeandtobestowrighteousness;thedevilhadthepowertodispensedeathandtopromotesin.The powers of good and evil, for Jewish apocalypticists, were engaged in a cosmic battle, andeverything,andeveryone,hadtotakeaside.Therewasnoneutralterritory.EveryonewasonthesideofeithergoodandGodorevilandthedevil.

This cosmic dualismworked itself out in a historical scenario. The history of this worldwasdividedinto twophases: thepresentage,whichwascontrolledbytheforcesofevil,andtheage tocome, inwhichGodwould rule supreme. It is not hard to see that the present is an evil age. Justconsider all thewars, famines,droughts, hurricanes, earthquakes,birthdefects, hatred,oppression,and injustice. The powers of evil are in charge, and they are gaining in strength. But God willintervene to overthrow the forces of evil in a cataclysmic act of judgment, to bring in his goodkingdom.

PessimismJewishapocalypticistswerepessimisticaboutthepossibilitiesofimprovingthingsinthiscurrentevilage.Thepowersofevilwerefarmorepowerfulthanwemortals,andeventhoughpeoplecouldresistthem, theycouldnotovercomethem.Noonecouldmake thisworld,ultimately,abetterplace—nomatter howmany good deedswere performed, nomatter howmanywise political decisionsweremade,nomatterhowmanyhelpful technologiesweredeveloped.Thingswerebad in thisage,andtheywereonlygoingtogetworseuntilitsend,whenliterallyallhellwasgoingtobreakloose.

JudgmentButapocalypticistsbelieved thatwhenthingsgot justasbadas theypossiblycouldget,Godwouldintervene in amighty act of judgment. In the previous chapterwe saw that1 Enoch described thepowerfulSonofManwhowouldbea futurecosmic judgeof theearth.FirstEnoch embraces thisapocalyptic worldview and maintains that indeed a time will come when God will judge all thepowers of evil on earth and in heaven through his representative the Son of Man. Otherapocalypticists too thought that judgment was coming, that God would destroy the evil powersalignedagainsthimandhispeople,andthathewouldvindicatethosewhohadchosentosidewithhimandhadsufferedasaresult.Hewouldsendasaviorfromheaven,andanewkingdomwouldarrivetoreplace the wicked kingdoms of this age. In this kingdom of God there would be no more pain,misery,orsuffering,andthosewhoenteredthekingdomwouldliveaneternalutopianexistence.

Thiscomingjudgmentwouldnotaffectonlythepeoplewhohappenedtobelivingatthetime.Itwouldaffectboththelivingandthedead.Apocalypticistscameupwiththeideathatatthisclimacticactofhistory,withthearrivaloftheendoftheage,thedeadwouldberesurrected.Allpeoplewouldbe brought back into their bodies to face judgment, either punishment or reward. This was acomforting ideafor thosewhohadsidedwithGodandwerebeingoppressedby theforcesofevilandtheirearthlyrepresentativesasaresult.Arewardwascoming.Moreover,peopleshouldnotthinkthattheycouldsidewiththeforcesofevil,prosperasaresult(sincethesearetheforcesinchargeofthis age), oppressothers, becomemighty andpowerful, and thendie andget awaywith it.Noonecould get awaywith it. Godwas going to raise all people from the dead in order to judge them,whethertheywerewillingornot.

Butwhenwouldthispromisedendoftheagecome?Infact,itwascomingverysoon.

ImminenceJewishapocalypticistsbelievedthattheworldhadgottenjustaboutasbadasitcouldget.ThepowersofevilwereoutinfullforcemakinglifeacesspoolofmiseryfortherighteouswhosidedwithGod.Buttheywereveryneartheend.Peopleneededtoholdonforjustalittlewhilelongerandkeepthefaith.Godwouldsooninterveneandsetuphisgoodkingdom.Butwhen?Howlongdidtheyneedtowait? “Truly I tell you, some of you standing here will not taste death before they see that thekingdom of God has come in power.” Those are the words of Jesus, Mark 9:1. He thought theapocalypticendwouldarriveverysoon,beforehisdiscipleshadalldied.Orashesayselsewhere,“TrulyItellyou,thisgenerationwillnotpassawaybeforeallthesethingstakeplace”(Mark13:30).

Jesus isportrayed inourearliestGospels, theSynoptics,asbeinganapocalypticistanticipatingtheimminentendoftheageandthearrivalofGod’sgoodkingdom.Buthowdoweknowthatthisportrayalisright?IftheGospelscontaintraditionsofJesusthatwereinventedoralteredinthecourseoforaltransmission,howcanwetellthattheapocalyptictraditionswerenotsimplyfoistedonhimbyhislaterfollowers?

Thereare in factgoodgrounds for thinking that Jesushimself, andnot justhis followers,wasthoroughly apocalyptic in his outlook. Recall: we need to apply our rigorous methodologicalprinciplestotheGospelstoseewhatishistoricallyaccurateinthem.Whenwedoso,itbecomesclearthat Jesus held very strongly to an apocalyptic view, that in fact at the very core of his earthlyproclamationwas an apocalypticmessage. Thiswill be a key factor in seeing how he understoodhimself,whetherasdivineorotherwise.Letmeexplainsomeoftheevidence.6

JesusasanApocalypticistIEARLIERPOINTEDOUTthatwhenestablishinghistoricallyauthentictraditionfromtheGospelswearelookingforlotsofindependentlyattestedsayingsanddeeds.Ishouldaddherethat inparticularweare lookingforsuch independentlyattested traditions fromourearliest sources.Sincestoriesweregetting changed over time, themore time that had passed between Jesus’s life and the source thatnarrateshislife,themorechancethattraditionshadbeenchangedandeveninvented.Andsowewantourearliestsources.JohnisthelastoftheGospelstobewritten,somesixtytosixty-fiveyearsafterJesuslived.TheSynopticGospelsareearlier.AndthesourcesoftheSynopticsareevenearlierthantheSynoptics.Ifwefindtraditionsindependentlyattestedin,say,Mark,ourearliestGospel,andQ,thesource for parts of Matthew and Luke, and M and L, the two independent sources (or group ofsources)theseothertwoGospelsused,thenwehaveearly,independenttraditions.Andthatisasgoodasitgets.

TheIndependentAttestationofJesus’sApocalypticMessageAsitturnsout,thisispreciselywhatwehavewithrespecttoapocalypticdeclarationsbyJesus.Theyareindependentlyattestedinallourearliestsources.

FromMarkAndinthosedays,afterthataffliction,thesunwillgrowdarkandthemoonwillnotgiveitslight,andthestarswillbefallingfromheaven,andthepowersintheskywillbeshaken;andthentheywillseetheSonofMancomingonthecloudswithgreatpowerandglory.Andthenhewillsendforthhisangelsandhewillgatherhiselectfromthefourwinds,fromtheendofearthtotheendofheaven...TrulyItellyou,thisgenerationwillnotpassawaybeforeallthesethingstakeplace.(Mark13:24–27,30)

FromQForjustastheflashinglightninglightsuptheearthfromonepartoftheskytotheother,sowilltheSonofManbeinhisday....AndjustasitwasinthedaysofNoah,sowillitbeinthedaysoftheSonofMan.Theywereeating,drinking,marrying,andgivingawayinmarriage,untilthedaythatNoahwentintothearkandthefloodcameanddestroyedthemall....SotoowillitbeonthedaywhentheSonofManisrevealed.(Luke17:24,26–27,30;seeMatt.24:27,37–39)

FromMJustastheweedsaregatheredandburnedwithfire,sowillitbeattheculminationoftheage.TheSonofManwillsendforthhisangels,and theywillgather fromhisKingdomeverycauseof sinandallwhodoevil, and theywill cast them into thefurnaceoffire.Inthatplacetherewillbeweepingandgnashingofteeth.Thentherighteouswillshineforthasthesun,intheKingdomoftheirFather.(Matt.13:40–43)

FromLButtakecareforyourselvessothatyourheartsarenotovercomewithwildlivinganddrunkennessandthecaresofthislife,andthatdaycomeuponyouunexpectedly,likeasprungtrap.Foritwillcometoallthosesittingonthefaceoftheearth.Bealert at all times, praying to have strength to flee from all these things that are about to take place and to stand in thepresenceoftheSonofMan.(Luke21:34–36)

Thesearejustsamples.AndIshouldstress,selectingthemtoillustratemypointisnotsimplyamatterofwilly-nillypickingandchoosingtheverses thatIwant. I’mlookingforamessagethat is

found independentlyattested inallourearlysources,and it turnsout, that’spreciselywhatwe findwiththeapocalypticproclamationsofJesus.

Itisalsostrikingandworthnotingthatthisapocalypticmessagecomestobetoneddown,andthenvirtuallyeliminated,andfinallypreachedagainst(allegedlybyJesus!)inourlatersources.Anditisnothard to figureoutwhy. If Jesuspredicted that the imminentapocalypsewouldarrivewithinhisowngeneration,beforehisdiscipleshadalldied,whatwasone to thinkageneration laterwhen infact ithadnotarrived?OnemightconcludethatJesuswaswrong.But ifonewantedtostaytruetohim,onemightchangethemessagethatheproclaimedsothathenolongerspokeaboutthecomingapocalypse. So it is no accident that our final canonical Gospel, John, written after that firstgeneration, no longer has Jesus proclaim an apocalyptic message. He preaches something elseentirely. Even later, in a book like the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus preaches directly against anapocalypticpointofview(sayings2,113).Astimewenton,theapocalypticmessagecametobeseenasmisguided,orevendangerous.AndsothetraditionsofJesus’spreachingwerechanged.Butinourearliestmultiplyattestedsources,thereitisforalltosee.Jesusalmostcertainlydeliveredsomesuchmessage.Aswewillsee,thisisasignificantkeyforunderstandingwhoJesusactuallythoughthewas:notGod,butsomeoneelse.

Istressagainthatit isimportantthatanytraditionofJesusbeplacedinaplausiblefirst-centuryPalestinianJewishcontext.AndthereisnodoubtthattheseapocalypticsayingsofJesusdojustthat.Apocalypticismwasverymuch in theair,asweknowfromtheDeadSeaScrollsandotherJewishwritings from around the time, such as1Enoch and other apocalypses that have survived. Jesus’smessage was not altogether unusual for his day. Other Jewish preachers were declaring similarthings.

Butcanthisapocalypticmessagepassourcriterionofdissimilarity?Somescholarshaveclaimeditcannot, that infact thesearewordsplacedonJesus’s lipsbyhis laterfollowerswho,unlikehim,thought the history of theworldwas soon to come to a crashing halt. I think this view is flat-outwrong,fortworeasons:oneisthatsomeoftheapocalypticsayingsabsolutelydopassthecriterionof dissimilarity; the other—this one is a bit more involved—is that the apocalyptic character ofJesus’sproclamationcanbedemonstratedbyconsideringintandembothhowhebeganhisministryandwhathappenedinitswake.

DissimilarityandtheMessageofJesusAnumberoftheapocalypticsayingsinourearliestSynopticsourcesarenotthekindsofthingsthatearlyChristianswouldhavewantedtoplaceonJesus’slips.Igiveyouthreeexamples.

First,inthesayingsaboutthe“SonofMan”thatIquotedabove,thereisapeculiaritythatmanypeopleglossoverwithoutthinkingaboutit.Thisissomewhatcomplicated,buttheissueisthis.EarlyChristians, includingtheauthorsoftheGospels, thoughtthatJesuswastheSonofMan,thecosmicjudgeoftheearthwhowastoreturnfromheavenverysoon.TheGospelsinfactidentifyJesusastheSon of Man in a number of places. Do such identifications pass the criterion of dissimilarity?Obviouslynot:ifyouthinkJesusisthecosmicjudge,youwouldhavenodifficultycomingupwithsayingsinwhichJesusisidentifiedastheSonofMan.ButwhatifyouhavesayingsinwhichJesusisactuallynot identifiedastheSonofMan?Evenbetter,whatifyouhavesayingsinwhichitappearsthat Jesus is talking about someone other thanhimself as the Son ofMan?Those are sayings thatChristianswouldhavebeenlesslikelytomakeup,sincetheythoughthewastheSonofMan.

Lookagainatthesayingsgivenabove.InnoneofthemisthereanyhintthatJesusistalkingabout

himselfwhenhereferstotheSonofMancominginjudgmentontheearth.Readersnaturallyassumethathe is talkingabouthimselfeitherbecause theybelieve thatJesus is theSonofManorbecausetheyknowthatelsewhere theGospels identifyhimas theSonofMan.Butnothing in thesesayingswould lead someone to make the identification. These sayings are not phrased the way earlyChristianswouldhavebeenlikelytoinventifthey,ratherthanJesus,hadcomeupwiththem.

Or consider another saying, fromMark 8:38. Pay close attention to thewording: “Whoever isashamedofmeandofmywordsinthisadulterousandsinfulgeneration,ofthatonewilltheSonofManbeashamedwhenhecomesinthegloryofhisFatherwiththeholyangels.”Now,anyonewhoalreadythinksthatJesusistheSonofManmaycasuallyassumethathereheistalkingabouthimself—whoever isashamedofJesus,Jesuswillbeashamedofhim(that is,hewill judgehim)whenhecomes from heaven. But that’s not actually what the saying says. Instead, it says that if anyone isashamed of Jesus, of that person the Son ofMan will be ashamed when he comes from heaven.NothinginthissayingmakesyouthinkthatJesusistalkingabouthimself.AreaderwhothinksJesusistalkingabouthimselfastheSonofManhasbroughtthatunderstandingtothetext,nottakenitfromthetext.

This isprobablynot thewayanearlyChristianwouldhavemadeupasayingabout theSonofMan.Youcan imagine someone inventinga saying inwhich it is crystal clear that Jesus is talkingabouthimself:“Ifyoudothistome,thenI,theSonofMan,willdothattoyou.”ButitislesslikelythataChristianwouldmakeupasayingthatseemstodifferentiatebetweenJesusandtheSonofMan.Thismeansthesayingismorelikelyauthentic.

MysecondexampleisfromoneofmyfavoritepassagesoftheentireBible,thestoryofthelastjudgmentofthesheepandthegoats(Matt.25:31–46;thisisfromM).WearetoldthattheSonofManhascomeinjudgmentontheearth,inthepresenceoftheangels,andhesitsonhisthrone.Hegathersallpeoplebeforehimandseparatesthem“asashepherdseparatesthesheepfromthegoats”(25:32).The “sheep” are on his right side and the “goats” on his left. He speaks first to the sheep andwelcomesthemtothekingdomofGodthathasbeenpreparedespeciallyforthem.Andwhyaretheyallowedtoenterthisgloriouskingdom?“BecauseIwashungryandyougavemefood,Iwasthirstyandyougavemedrink,Iwasastrangerandyouwelcomedme,Iwasnakedandyouclothedme,Iwassickandyouvisitedme,Iwasinprisonandyoucametome”(25:35–36).Therighteousaretakenabackanddon’tunderstand:theyhaveneverdonethesethingsforhim—infacttheyhaveneverevenseenhimbefore.Thejudgetellsthem,“Truly,Isaytoyou,asyoudidittooneoftheleastofthesemybrethren, you did it tome” (25:40).He then speaks to the “goats” and sends them away to the“eternalfirepreparedforthedevilandhisangels”(25:41),andhetellsthemwhy.Theydidn’tfeedhimwhenhewashungry,givehimadrinkwhenhewas thirsty,welcomehimasastranger,clothehimwhenhewasnaked,visithimwhenhewassickandinprison.Theytoodon’tunderstand—theyhaveneverseenhimbeforeeither,sohowcouldtheyhaverefusedtohelphim?Andtothemhesays,“Truly,Isay,toyou,asyoudiditnottooneoftheleastofthese,youdiditnottome”(25:45).Andsowearetoldthatthesinnersgoofftoeternalpunishmentandtherighteousofftoeternallife.

Itisaspectacularpassage.AnditalmostcertainlyissomethingveryclosetowhatJesusactuallysaid.Andwhy?Because it isnot at allwhat theearlyChristians thoughtabouthowapersongainseternallife.TheearlyChristianchurchtaughtthatapersonisrewardedwithsalvationbybelievinginthe death and resurrection of Jesus.TheApostle Paul, for example,was quite adamant that peoplecouldnotearn their salvationbydoing the things the lawrequired them todo,or in factbydoinganythingatall.Ifthatwerepossible,therewouldhavebeennoreasonforChristtohavedied(see,forexample,Gal.2:15–16,21).EveninMatthew’sGospel thefocusofattentionisonthesalvationthat

Jesusbringsbyhisdeathandresurrection.InthissayingofJesus,however,peoplegaineternallifenotbecausetheyhavebelievedinChrist(theyhaveneverevenseenorheardoftheSonofMan),butbecause they have done good things for people in need. This is not a saying that earlyChristiansinvented. Itembodies theviewsofJesus.TheSonofManwill judge theearth,and thosewhohavehelpedothersinneedwillbetheoneswhowillberewardedwitheternallife.

My third example of a saying that almost certainly passes the criterion of dissimilarity is anapocalypticsayingthatwillbeimportantforourdiscussionlaterinthischapter.InasayingpreservedforusinQ,Jesustellshistwelvedisciplesthatinthe“agetocome,whentheSonofManisseateduponhisglorious throne,youalsowillsitupon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribesof Israel”(Matt.19:28;seeLuke22:30).Itdoesn’ttakemuchreflectiontoseewhythisissomethingthatJesusislikelytohavesaid—that itwasnotputonhis lipsbyhis laterfollowersafterhisdeath.AfterJesusdied, everyone knew that he had been betrayed by one of his own followers, Judas Iscariot. (Thatreally did happen: it is independently attested all over the map, and it passes the criterion ofdissimilarity. Who would make up a story that Jesus had such little influence over his ownfollowers?)But towhom is Jesus speaking in this saying?To all theTwelve (meaning the twelvedisciples).IncludingJudasIscariot.Heistellingthemthattheyall,Judasincluded,willberulersinthefuturekingdomofGod.NoChristianwouldmakeupasayingthatindicatedthatthebetrayerofJesus,JudasIscariothimself,wouldbeenthronedasarulerinthefuturekingdom.SinceaChristianwouldnothavemadethesayingup,italmostcertainlygoesbacktothehistoricalJesus.

TheBeginningandEndastheKeystotheMiddleThe combination of all these arguments I have mustered have persuaded the majority of criticalscholars of the New Testament for more than a century that Jesus is best understood to haveproclaimedanapocalypticmessage.ThefinalargumentthatIgivenowis,inmyjudgment,themostconvincingofthemall.ItissogoodthatIwishIhadcomeupwithitmyself.7Theargumentisthatweknowwith relative certainty how Jesus began hisministry, andweknowwith equal certaintywhathappened in its aftermath.Theonly thing connecting the beginning and the end is themiddle—theministryandproclamationofJesushimself.

Let me explain. I earlier pointed out that we have good evidence—independent attestation anddissimilarity—ofhowJesusbeganhispublic life—bybeingbaptizedbyJohn theBaptist.AndwhowasJohntheBaptist?Afiery,apocalypticpreacherproclaimingthattheendoftheagewascomingverysoonandthatpeopleneededtorepentinpreparationforit.John’swordsarebestrecordedforusinastatementfoundintheQdocument,deliveredtothecrowds:“Whowarnedyoutofleefromthewrathtocome?Bearfruitsworthyofrepentance....Evennowtheaxislyingattherootofthetrees;everytreethereforethatdoesnotbeargoodfruitiscutdownandthrownintothefire”(Luke3:7–9).This is a thoroughly apocalypticmessage.Wrath is coming. People need to prepare (by “bearinggoodfruit”).Andiftheydon’t?Theywillbecutdownlikeatreeandtossedintothefire.Whenwillthis happen? It is ready to start at any moment: the ax is already at the root of the tree, and thechoppingisreadytobegin.

Jesus associated with John the Baptist at the outset of his ministry. Most scholars think JesusstartedoutasadiscipleorfollowerofJohnbeforehebrokeoffonhisown.Jesusofcoursehadlotsof religiousoptions tohim in the religiouslydiversifiedworldof first-centuryJudaism—hecouldhavejoinedthePharisees,forexample,ormovedtoJerusalemtofocusontheworshipinthetemple,orjoinedupwithsomeotherreligiousleader.Buthechosetoassociatewithanapocalypticpreacher

ofcomingdestruction. Itmusthavebeenbecauseheagreedwithhismessage. Jesus startedouthisministryasanapocalypticist.

But the key to this particular argument is that the aftermath of Jesus’s ministry was alsoapocalyptic in its orientation.What happened immediately after Jesus’s life? TheChristian churchstarted.Hisdisciplesstartedconvertingpeopletobelieveinhim.AndwhatdidtheseearlyChristiansbelieve?Allofourevidencesuggeststhattheytoowereapocalypticists.TheythoughtthatJesuswassoon to return fromheaven in judgmenton theearth.OurearliestChristianauthor,as I’vepointedout,wasPaul.Hewasthoroughlyentrenchedinapocalypticthinking.Hewassosurethattheendwascoming soon that he thought he himselfwould be alivewhen judgment day arrived (thus 1Thess.4:17;1Cor.15:51–53).

Jesusbeganhisministrybyassociatingwithafieryapocalypticpreacher,andinthewakeofhisdeathenthusiasticallyapocalypticcommunitiesoffollowersemerged.Thebeginningwasapocalypticandtheendwasapocalyptic.Howcouldthemiddlenotbe?Ifonlythebeginningwereapocalyptic,onecouldarguethatJesusshiftedawayfromJohntheBaptist’sapocalypticmessage—whichiswhyhisfollowersdidnotsubscribetoanapocalypticview.Buttheydidsubscribetosuchaview,sothatdoesn’twork.Or ifonly theendwereapocalyptic,onecouldargue thatJesushimselfdidnotholdsuchviewsbutthathisfollowerscametosubscribetothemafterward,andsotheyreadtheirviewsback onto his life. But in fact the beginning of Jesus’s ministrywas heavily apocalyptic, so thatdoesn’tworkeither.SinceJesusassociatedwiththeBaptistatthebeginningofhisministryandsinceapocalyptic communities sprang up in thewake of hisministry, theministry itselfmust have beencharacterizedbyanapocalypticproclamationoftheimminentarrivaloftheSonofMan,whowouldjudgetheearthandbringinGod’sgoodkingdom.

WhoDidJesusThinkHeWas?THROUGHOUTTHISDISCUSSIONIhavebeenfocusingonthecharacterofJesus’smessage.Idonot,byanystretchoftheimagination,wanttosuggestthathismessagewasallthatmatteredtothehistoricalJesusorallthatmatterstoscholarstryingtounderstandhislife.ButonecouldarguethatthevariousdeedsthatJesusisknowntohaveperformed,thevariouscontroversiesthathewasinvolvedwith,thevariouseventsthatleduptohisdeath—allofthemmakesensewithinanapocalypticframeworkinparticular, as fuller studies have shown.8 My interest in this book, however, is on atheological/religious question of how (and when) Jesus came to be thought of as God. And myargumentisthatthisisnotwhatJesushimselfspenthisdaysteachingandpreachingduringhispublicministry.Quitethecontrary,theburdenofhismessagewasanapocalypticproclamationofcomingdestructionandsalvation:hedeclaredthattheSonofManwouldbecomingonthecloudsofheaven,very soon, in judgment on the earth, and people needed to prepare for this cataclysmic break inhistory,asanewkingdomwouldarriveinwhichtherighteouswouldbevindicatedandrewardedforremainingtruetoGodanddoingwhatGodwantedthemtodo,evenwhenitledtosuffering.

Butwhatabout Jesus, themessengerhimself?Whatwashis role in that comingkingdom?ThewayIwant tobegin reflectingon thisquestion isbyconsideringwhatweknowaboutwhatJesus’searliestfollowerssaidabouthim.

The single most common descriptive title that was applied to Jesus in the early years of theChristianmovementwas the termChrist. Sometimes I have to tellmy students thatChristwas notJesus’slastname.MostpeopleatthetimeJesuslived,apartfromtheupper-crustRomanelite,didnot

havelastnames,sohewasnotJesusChrist,borntoJosephandMaryChrist.Christisatitleandis,infact,theGreektranslationoftheHebrewwordformessiah.SayingJesusChristmeanssayingJesusisthemessiah.

There are reasons for thinking that some of Jesus’s followers thought of him as the messiahduring his lifetime, not simply afterward. And there are further reasons for thinking that Jesushimselfsaidhewasthemessiah.Buttogettothesereasons,wefirsthavetoexaminebrieflywhatthetermmessiahmeanttofirst-centuryPalestinianJews.

TheJewishMessiahWeknowfromvariousJewishwritingsofanumberofwaysthetermmessiahcouldbeunderstood.9To beginwith, I should stresswhat Imentioned: thewordmessiah inHebrewmeans “onewho isanointed.”Andanointedinthiscontextalwaysmeanssomethinglike“chosenandspeciallyhonoredbyGod.”Itusuallycarrieswithittheconnotation“inordertofulfillGod’spurposesandmediatehiswill on earth.”Aswehave seen,1Enoch speaks of theSonofMan as the anointedone.This is asomewhatunusualinterpretationoftheterm,inthatitappliestothefuturecosmicjudgeoftheearth;but itmakes sense that some Jewswould interpret it in thisway.Whobetter couldbedescribedasGod’s special chosen one than that divine, possibly angelic beingwhowould come to destroy theforcesofevilandtosetupGod’skingdom?From1EnochweknowthatsomeJewsclearlydidthinkofthisfuturejudge—whetherhewascalledtheSonofManorsomethingelse—asGod’smessiah.

Morecommonly,though,thetermwasusedtorefernottoadivineangelicbeing,buttoahumanbeing.Weknow from theDeadSeaScrolls, for example, that some Jews—especially thosedeeplycommittedtotherituallawsgivenintheTorah—hadtheideathatafuturerulerofIsraelwouldbeagreatandpowerfulpriest;intheDeadSeaScrollsthispriestlyrulerisunderstoodtobeamessiah.HewouldbeanointedbyGodandwouldbeanauthoritativeinterpreterofscripturewhowouldrulethepeoplebyexplainingtothemGod’slawsandenforcingthemasneedbe.ThispriestlyinterpretationofthetermmessiahalsomakessensebecauseintheHebrewBiblepriestsweresometimessaidtobeanointedbyGod.

Butamuchmorecommonunderstandingofthetermdidnotinvolveanangelicjudgeoftheearthoranauthoritativepriest,butadifferentkindofruler.Again,aswehavealreadyseen:itwasthekingofIsraelwhowasunderstoodtobeGod’s“anointedone”parexcellence.Saulwasmadethefirstkingof Israel through a ritual ceremony of anointing (1 Sam. 10:1). So too the second king, the greatDavid(1Sam.16:13).Andsotoothesuccessorsinhisfamilyline.

Thekey to thismostwidespreadunderstandingof“messiah” is thepromise thatGod is said tohavemadetoDavidin2Samuel7,asdiscussedearlier:hepromisedthathewould“beafather”totheson of David, Solomon. In that sense, the king was the “son of God.” But a second thing Godpromisedisjustassignificant,ashetellsDavid:“Yourhouseandyourkingdomshallbemadesureforeverbeforeme;yourthroneshallbeestablishedforever”(2Sam.7:16).ThisisaboutasplainasGodcouldmakeit.Davidwouldalwayshaveadescendantonthethrone.Godpromised.

As it turnsout, descendants ofDavidwereon the throne for a very long time—for some fourcenturies.Butsometimeshistorygetsinthewayofexpectations,andthathappenedin586BCE.Thatiswhen the rising political power of Babylon destroyed the nation of Judea—and its capital cityJerusalem,alongwiththetempleofGodoriginallybuiltbySolomon—andremovedtheDavidickingfromhisthrone.

LaterJewslookingbackatthisdisasterwonderedhowitcouldhavehappened.Godhadpromised

thatevenifDavid’s“son”shouldbedisobedient,Godwouldstillhonorhim,andtherewouldalwaysbeakingfromDavid’slinerulingIsrael.Butthatwasnolongerthecase.HadGodgonebackonhisword?SomeJewishthinkerscametobelievethatthepromiseofGodwasnotnullandvoid,butthatitwastofindfulfillmentinsomefuturetime.TheDavidickinghadbeentemporarilyremovedfromthethrone,butGodwouldrememberhispromise.Andsoananointedonewasstill tocome—afuturekinglikeDavid,oneofhisdescendants,whowouldreestablishtheDavidickingdomandmakeIsraelonce more a great and glorious independent state, the envy of all the other nations. This futureanointed one—the messiah—would be like his greatest ancestor, a mighty warrior and skilledpolitician.Hewouldoverthrowtheoppressorswhohadtakenoverthepromisedlandandreestablishboththemonarchyandthenation.Itwouldbeaglorioustime.

It appears that some Jewswho had this expectation of the futuremessiah saw him in politicalterms:asagreatandpowerfulkingwhowouldbringabout therestoredkingdomthroughmilitaryforce,takinguptheswordtodisposeofhisenemies.OtherJews—especiallyofamoreapocalypticbent—anticipated that this future event would be more miraculous: as an act of God when hepersonallyintervenedinthecourseofhistorytomakeIsraeloncemoreakingdomruledthroughhismessiah. Thosewhoweremost avidly apocalyptic believed that this future kingdomwould be noordinaryrun-of-the-millpoliticalsystemwithallitsbureaucraciesandcorruption,butwouldinfactbe thekingdomofGod, autopian state inwhich therewouldbenoevil, pain,or sufferingof anykind.

JesusastheMessiahThereiseverygoodreasontothinkthatJesus’sfollowers,duringhislifetime,believedthathemightbethiscominganointedone.Twopiecesofdatamustbeseenintandemtorecognizetheirfullforce.ThefirstisoneIhavealreadymentioned,that“Christ”(i.e.,anointedone;i.e.,messiah)wasfarandawaythemostcommondescriptivetitletheearlyChristiansusedforJesus,somuchsothattheyoftencalled him Christ rather than Jesus (so that, despite my little joke earlier, it really did begin tofunction as his name). This is very surprising, given the fact that as far as we can tell, Jesus didnothingduringhislifetomakeanyonethinkthathewasthisanointedone.Thatistosay,hedidnotcome on the clouds of heaven to judge the living and the dead; hewas not a priest; and he neverraisedanarmyanddrovetheRomansoutofthepromisedlandtosetupIsraelasasovereignstate.Sowhydidhisfollowerssocommonlydesignatehimbyatitlethatsuggestedthathehaddoneoneofthesethings?

This question relates to the second datum. Many Christians today assume that the earliestfollowersofJesusconcludedthathewasthemessiahbecauseofhisdeathandresurrection:ifJesusdied for sinsandwas raised from thedead,hemustbe themessiah.But such thinking ispreciselywrong,forreasonsthatyoumayalreadyhaveinferredfromwhatIhavesaidto thispoint.AncientJewshadnoexpectation—zeroexpectation—thatthefuturemessiahwoulddieandrisefromthedead.Thatwas notwhat themessiahwas supposed to do.Whatever specific idea any Jewhad about themessiah(ascosmicjudge,mightypriest,powerfulwarrior),whattheyallthoughtwasthathewouldbeafigureofgrandeurandpowerwhowouldbeamightyrulerofIsrael.AndJesuswascertainlynotthat. Rather than destroying the enemy, Jesuswas destroyed by the enemy—arrested, tortured, andcrucified, themostpainful andpubliclyhumiliating formofdeathknown to theRomans. Jesus, inshort,wasjusttheoppositeofwhatJewsexpectedamessiahtobe.

Atalaterpoint,ChristiansbeganheatedandprolongedargumentswithJewsoverthisissue,with

theChristiansclaimingthatinfacttheHebrewBiblepredictedthatthefuturemessiahwoulddieandberaisedfromthedead.TheypointedtopassagesintheBiblethattalkedaboutonewhosufferedandwas thenvindicated,passages suchas Isaiah53andPsalm22. Jews, though,hada ready response:thesepassagesarenot talkingabout themessiah.Andyoucanseebyreadingthemforyourself, infactthewordmessiahneveroccursinthem.

Whetherornotyouchoosetounderstandthesepassagesasreferringtothemessiah,eventhoughtheymakenoexplicitreferencetothemessiah,isbesidemypointatthisstage.Mypointhereisthatno Jew before Christianity was on the scene ever interpreted such passages as referring to themessiah.Themessiahwas tobea figureofgreatstrengthwhooverwhelmed theenemyandsetupGod’skingdom;butJesuswassquashedbytheenemy.FormostJews,thiswasdecisiveenough.Jesuswasn’tthemessiah,moreorlessbydefinition.

Butthisleadsnowtotheproblem.IfbeliefthatJesushaddiedforsinsandbeenraisedfromthedeadwouldnotmakeanyJewthinkthathethereforemustbethemessiah,howdoweaccountforthefactthatChristiansimmediatelystartedproclaiming—notdespitehisdeath,butbecauseofhisdeath—thathewas themessiah?Theonlyplausibleexplanationis that theycalledJesus thisafterhisdeathbecausetheywerecallinghimthisbeforehisdeath.

Hereiswhatmanyscholarstaketobethemostreasonablescenario.Duringhislife,Jesusraisedhopesandexpectations thathemightbe themessiah.Hisdisciplesexpectedgreat things fromhim.Possiblyhewouldraiseanarmy.PossiblyhewouldcalldownthewrathofGodontheenemy.ButhewoulddosomethingandwouldbethefuturerulerofIsrael.Thecrucifixioncompletelydisconfirmedthisideaandshowedthedisciplesjusthowwrongtheywere.Jesuswaskilledbyhisenemies,sohewasn’tthemessiahafterall.ButthentheycametobelievethatJesushadbeenraisedfromthedead,andthisreconfirmedwhathadearlierbeendisconfirmed.Hereallyisthemessiah.Butnotinthewaywethought!

I will pursue this line of thinking in the next two chapters, as I explore belief in Jesus’sresurrection.At this stage Iwant simply tomake themostbasicpoint. Jesus’s followersmusthaveconsideredhimtobethemessiahinsomesensebeforehisdeath,becausenothingabouthisdeathorresurrectionwouldhavemadethemcomeupwiththeideaafterward.Themessiahwasnotsupposedtodieorriseagain.

Jesus’sMessianicSelf-UnderstandingINVIEWOFTHISdiscussion,whatcanwesayabouthowJesusmostlikelyunderstoodhimself?Didhecallhimselfthemessiah?Ifso,whatdidhemeanbyit?AnddidhecallhimselfGod?HereIwanttostakeoutaclearposition:messiah,yes;God,no.

I think thereareexcellent reasons for thinking that Jesus imaginedhimselfas themessiah, inavery specificandparticular sense.Themessiahwas thought tobe the future rulerof thepeopleofIsrael.Butasanapocalypticist,Jesusdidnotthinkthatthefuturekingdomwasgoingtobewonbyapoliticalstruggleoramilitaryengagementperse.ItwasgoingtobebroughtbytheSonofMan,whocameinjudgmentagainsteveryoneandeverythingopposedtoGod.Thenthekingdomwouldarrive.AndIthinkJesusbelievedhehimselfwouldbethekinginthatkingdom.

Ihaveseveralreasonsforthinkingso.Firstletmegobacktomyearlierpointaboutthedisciples.TheyclearlythoughtandtalkedaboutJesusasthemessiahduringhisearthlylife.Butinfacthedidnothingtomakeapersonthinkthathewasthemessiah.Hemaywellhavebeenapacifist(“loveyour

enemy,”“turntheothercheek,”“blessedarethepeacemakers,”etc.),whichwouldnotexactlymakehima leadingcandidate tobegeneralover the Jewisharmed forces.Hedidnotpreach theviolentoverthrow of the Roman armies. And he talked about someone else, rather than himself, as thecomingSonofMan.SoifnothinginwhatJesuswasactivelydoingwouldmakeanyonesuspectthathehadmessianicpretensions,whywouldhisfollowersalmostcertainlyhavebeenthinkingabouthimandcallinghimthemessiahduringhispublicministry?TheeasiestexplanationisthatJesustoldthemthathewasthemessiah.

But what he meant by “messiah” has to be understood within the broader context of hisapocalypticproclamation.ThisiswhereoneofthesayingsofJesusthatIearlierestablishedasalmostcertainlyauthenticcomesintoplay.Aswehaveseen,Jesustoldhisdisciples—JudasIscariotincluded—thattheywouldbeseatedontwelvethronesrulingthetwelvetribesofIsraelinthefuturekingdom.Wellenough.Butwhowouldbetheultimateking?Jesuswastheirmaster(=lord)now.Wouldhenotbetheirmaster(=Lord)then?Heistheonewhocalledthem,instructedthem,commissionedthem,andpromisedthemthronesinthekingdom.Itisalmostunthinkablethathedidnotimaginethathetoowouldhavearoletoplayinthatkingdom,andifhewastheleaderofthedisciplesnow,hecertainlywouldbe the leaderof thedisciples then. Jesusmusthave thought thathewouldbe thekingof thekingdomofGodsoontobebroughtbytheSonofMan.AndwhatisthetypicaldesignationforthefuturekingofIsrael?Messiah.ItisinthissensethatJesusmusthavetaughthisdisciplesthathewasthemessiah.

Twootherconsiderationsrenderthisjudgmentevenmorecertain.ThefirsthasagaintodowithJudasIscariot,theJewishbadguyinthestoriesoftheGospels;thesecondinvolvesPontiusPilate,theRomanbadguy.First,aboutJudas.TherehasbeenendlessspeculationaboutwhoJudasIscariotwas—totheextentofwonderingwhatIscariotissupposedtomean—andaboutwhyhebetrayedJesus.10AsIpointedout,thereisnodoubtthatJudasdidbetrayJesus(thebetrayalpassesallourcriteria),butwhydidhedoit?Therearelotsoftheoriesaboutthis,buttheyarenotgermanetothepointIwanttomakehere.Rather,IwanttoreflectonwhatitwasthatJudasactuallybetrayed.

AccordingtotheGospels,itwasverysimple.WhenJesushadcometoJerusalemduringthelastweekofhislifetocelebratetheannualPassovermealinthecapitalcity,hecausedadisturbanceinthetemple—predictingingoodapocalypticfashionthat itwouldbedestroyedin thecomingjudgment.Thismadethelocalauthoritiessitupandtakenotice.TheJewishleaderswhowereinchargeofthetempleandofcivillifewithinJerusalemwereknownastheSadducees.ThesewerearistocraticJews,manyofthempriestswhoranthetempleanditssacrifices;amongtheirnumberwasthechiefofficial,thehighpriest.Thepriestswereinvestedinmaintainingorderamongthepeople,innosmallmeasurebecausetheRomanswhowereinchargeallowedlocalaristocratstoruntheirownaffairsandtodothings as theywantedas longas therewereno localdisturbances.ButPassoverwas an incendiarytime;thefestivalitselfwasknowntostirupnationalisticsentimentandthoughtsofrebellion.

That’sbecausethePassoverfeastcommemoratedthatepisodefromtheHebrewBiblewhenGoddeliveredthepeopleofIsraelfromslaveryinEgyptunder the leadershipofMoses.Everyyear theexoduseventwascelebratedasJewsfromaroundtheworldrememberedthatGodhadintervenedontheirbehalfinordertosavethemfromforeigndomination.Thefestival,climaxingwiththespecialmeal—the Passover seder, as it came to be called—was not simply celebrated out of antiquarianinterests.Many Jews hoped and even anticipated that what God had done before, long ago, underMoses, hewould do again, in their own day, under one of their own leaders. Everyone knew thatuprisingscouldoccurwhennationalisticpassionsreachedafeveredpitch.Sothiswasonetimeofthe

yearwhentheRomangovernorofJudea,whonormallylivedinthecoastalcityofCaesarea,wouldcome to Jerusalem with troops, to quell any possible riots. The Sadducees, who were willing tocooperatewiththeRomansinexchangeforbeingabletomaintaintheworshipofGodinthetempleasGodhadinstructedintheTorah,wereequallyinvestedinkeepingthepeace.

SowhatweretheytothinkwhenthisoutsiderfromGalilee,JesusofNazareth,appearedintown,preachinghisfieryapocalypticmessageofthecomingdestructionofthearmedforcesandpredictingthat their own beloved templewould be destroyed in the violent overthrowof everything thatwasopposed toGod?Theysurelydidnot takekindly to themessageor themessenger,and theykeptasteadyeyeonhim.

Accordingtoallouraccounts,JesusspenttheweekleadinguptothePassoverfeastinJerusalempreachinghisapocalypticmessageofcomingdestruction(seeMark13;Matt.24–25).Itappearsthathewas gatheringmore andmore crowds. Peoplewere listening to him. Somewere accepting hismessage.Themovementwasgrowing.Sotheleadersdecidedtoact.

ThisiswhereJudasIscariotcomesin.IntheGospels,Judasappearstohavebeenhiredtoleadtheauthorities to Jesus so they could arrest himwhen the crowdswere not around. I’ve always beensuspiciousof theseaccounts. If theauthoritieswantedtoarrestJesusquietly,whynot justhavehimfollowed?Whydidtheyneedaninsider?

TherearereasonsforthinkingthatinfactJudasbetrayedsomethingelse.Heretherearetwofactstobearinmind.ThefirstistoreaffirmthatwehavenorecordofJesuseverproclaiminghimselftobe the future king of the Jews, the messiah, in a public context. This is never his message. HismessageisaboutthecomingkingdomtobebroughtbytheSonofMan.Healwayskeepshimselfoutofit.ThesecondfactisthatwhentheauthoritiesarrestedJesusandhandedhimovertoPontiusPilate,theconsistentreport is that thechargeleveledagainsthimathis trialwasthathecalledhimself thekingoftheJews.IfJesusneverpreachedinpublicthathewasthefutureking,butthiswasthechargethatwasleveledagainsthimathistrial,howdidoutsiderscometoknowofit?11ThesimplestansweristhatthisiswhatJudasbetrayed.

Judaswas one of the insiders towhom Jesus disclosed his vision of the future. Judas and theeleven others would all be rulers in the future kingdom.And Jesus would be the king. For somereason—we’ll never know why—Judas became a turncoat and betrayed both the cause and hismaster.12HetoldtheJewishauthoritieswhatJesuswasactuallyteachinginprivate,anditwasalltheyneeded.They had him arrested and turned himover to the governor.Herewas someonewhowasdeclaringhimselftobeking.

And now aword about Pontius Pilate.As governor of Judea, Pilate had the power of life anddeath.TheRomanempiredidnothaveanything like federalcriminal law, suchascanbe found inmanycountries today.Governorswere appointed to rule thevariousprovinces andhad twomajortasks: to collect taxes forRomeand tokeep thepeace.Theycouldachieve these twogoalsbyanymeansnecessary.So,for instance,anyonewhowasconsideredtobea troublemakercouldbedealtwithruthlesslyandswiftly.Thegovernorcouldorderhisdeath,andtheorderwouldbeimmediatelycarried out. There was no such thing as due process, trial by jury, or the possibility of appeal.Problematic people in problematic timeswere dealtwith bymeans of swift and decisive “justice,”usuallyviolentjustice.

Accordingtoouraccounts,thetrialofJesusbeforePilatewasshortandtothepoint.PilateaskedhimwhetheritwastruethathewasthekingoftheJews.Almostcertainly,thiswastheactualchargeleveledagainstJesus.Itismultiplyattestedinnumerousindependentwitnesses,bothatthetrialitself

and as the charge written on the placard that hung with him on his cross (e.g., Mark 15:2, 26).Moreover,itisnotachargethatChristianswouldhaveinventedforJesus—forapossiblyunexpectedreason.Even thoughChristians came to understand Jesus to be themessiah, theynever ever, fromwhatwecantell,appliedtohimthetitle“kingoftheJews.”IfChristiansweretoinventachargetoputonPilate’slips,itwouldbe,“Areyouthemessiah?”Butthat’snothowitworksintheGospels.Thechargeisspecificallythathecalledhimself“kingoftheJews.”

Evidence thatJesusreallydid think thathewas thekingof theJews is theveryfact thathewaskilledforit.IfPilateaskedhimwhetherhewereinfactcallinghimselfthis,Jesuscouldhavesimplydenied it, and indicated that hemeant no trouble and that he hadnokingly expectations, hopes, orintentions.Andthatwouldhavebeenthat.ThechargewasthathewascallinghimselfthekingoftheJews,andeitherheflat-outadmitteditorherefusedtodenyit.Pilatedidwhatgovernorstypicallydidinsuchcases.Heorderedhimexecutedasatroublemakerandpoliticalpretender.Jesuswaschargedwithinsurgency,andpoliticalinsurgentswerecrucified.

ThereasonJesuscouldnothavedeniedthathecalledhimselfthekingoftheJewswaspreciselythathedidcallhimselfthekingoftheJews.Hemeantthat,ofcourse,inapurelyapocalypticsense:when thekingdomarrived,hewouldbemade theking.ButPilatewasnot interested in theologicalniceties.OnlytheRomanscouldappointsomeonetobeking,andanyoneelsewhowantedtobekinghadtorebelagainstthestate.

AndsoPilateorderedJesuscrucifiedonthespot.Accordingtoourrecords,whicharecompletelybelievableatthispoint,thesoldiersroughedhimup,mockedhim,floggedhim,andthenledhimofftobecrucified.Evidently,twosimilarcasesweredecidedthatmorning.Maybeacouplemorethedayafterthatandthedayafterthat.Inthisinstance,theytookJesusandthetwootherstoapublicplaceofexecution and fixed them all to crosses. According to our earliest account, Jesus was dead in sixhours.

DidJesusClaimtoBeGod?THIS,THEN,INAnutshelliswhatIthinkwecansayaboutthehistoricalJesusandhisunderstandingofhimself.HethoughthewasaprophetpredictingtheendofthecurrentevilageandthefuturekingofIsraelintheagetocome.ButdidhecallhimselfGod?

It is true that Jesus claims to be divine in the last of our canonical Gospels to bewritten, theGospelofJohn.WewilllookattherelevantpassagesatlengthinChapter7.ButhereitisenoughtonotethatinthatGospelJesusdoesmakeremarkableclaimsabouthimself.InspeakingofthefatheroftheJews,Abraham(wholivedeighteenhundredyearsearlier),Jesustellshisopponents,“TrulyItellyou, beforeAbrahamwas, I am” (8:58). This particular phrase, “I am,” rings a familiar chord toanyoneacquaintedwiththeHebrewBible.InthebookofExodus,inthestoryoftheburningbushthatweconsideredinChapter2,MosesasksGodwhathisnameis,andGodtellshimthathisnameis“Iam.”JesusappearstobeclaimingnotonlytohaveexistedbeforeAbraham,buttohavebeengiventhenameofGodhimself.HisJewishopponentsknowexactlywhathe issaying.They immediatelytakeupstonestostonehim.

LaterintheGospel,Jesusisevenmoreexplicit,asheproclaims“IandtheFatherareone”(John10:30).Onceagain, theJewishlistenersbreakout thestones.Still later,whenJesusis talkingtohisdisciplesathislastmealwiththem,hisfollowerPhilipaskshimtoshowthemwhoGodtheFatheris;Jesusreplies,“TheonewhohasseenmehasseentheFather”(14:9).Andagainlater,duringthesame

meal,JesuspraystoGodandspeaksabouthowGodhad“senthim”intotheworldandrefersto“myglorythatyougaveme...beforethefoundationoftheworld”(17:24).

Jesus is not claiming tobeGod theFather here, obviously (sincewhenhe’s praying, he is nottalkingtohimself).SoheisnotsayingthatheisidenticalwithGod.ButheissayingthatheisequalwithGod and has been thatway from before theworldwas created. These are amazingly exaltedclaims.

Butlookedatfromahistoricalperspective,theysimplycannotbeascribedtothehistoricalJesus.Theydon’tpassanyofourcriteria.Theyarenotmultiplyattestedinoursources;theyappearonlyinJohn,ourlatestandmost theologicallyorientedGospel.TheycertainlydonotpassthecriterionofdissimilaritysincetheyexpresstheveryviewofJesusthattheauthoroftheGospelofJohnhappenstohold.Andtheyarenotatallcontextuallycredible.WehavenorecordofanyPalestinianJeweversayinganysuchthingsabouthimself.Thesedivineself-claimsinJohnarepartofJohn’sdistinctivetheology;theyarenotpartofthehistoricalrecordofwhatJesusactuallysaid.

Lookatthematterinadifferentlight.AsIpointedout,wehavenumerousearliersourcesforthehistoricalJesus:afewcommentsinPaul(includingseveralquotationsfromJesus’steachings),Mark,Q,M,andL,nottomentionthefinishedGospelsofMatthewandLuke.Innoneofthemdowefindexaltedclaimsofthissort.IfJesuswentaroundGalileeproclaiminghimselftobeadivinebeingsentfromGod—onewhoexistedbeforethecreationoftheworld,whowasinfactequalwithGod—couldanythingelsethathemightsaybesobreathtakingandthunderouslyimportant?Andyetnoneoftheseearliersourcessaysanysuchthingabouthim.Didthey(allofthem!)justdecidenottomentiontheonethingthatwasmostsignificantaboutJesus?

Almost certainly the divine self-claims in John are not historical. But is it possible that Jesusconsideredhimselfdivineinsomeothersense?IhavealreadyarguedthathedidnotconsiderhimselftobetheSonofMan,andsohedidnotconsiderhimselftobetheheavenlyangelicbeingwhowouldbethejudgeoftheearth.Buthedidthinkofhimselfasthefuturekingofthekingdom,themessiah.Andwesawinthepreviouschapter that insomepassagesofscripturethekingis talkedaboutasadivinebeing,notameremortal.Isn’titpossiblethatJesusunderstoodhimselfasdivineinthatsense?

It isofcoursepossible,butI thinkit ishighlyunlikelyfor thefollowingreason.In theHebrewBible,andindeedintheentireJewishtradition,wedohaveinstancesinwhichmortals—forexample,aking,orMoses,orEnoch—wereconsideredtobedivinebeingsinsomesense.Butthatwasalwayswhatsomeoneelsesaidaboutthem;itwasneverwhattheywererecordedassayingaboutthemselves.Thisisquitedifferentfromthesituationthatwefindin,say,Egypt,wherethepharaohsclaimeddirectdivine lineage; or withAlexander theGreat, who accepted cultic veneration; or with some of theRoman emperors, who actively propagated the idea that they were gods. This never happens inJudaismthatweknowof.The idea thatakingcouldbedivinemayhaveoccurred tohis followerslater, as they began to think more about his eminence and significance. But we have no knowninstanceofalivingJewishkingproclaiminghimselftobedivine.

CouldJesusbe theexception?Yes,ofcourse; therearealwaysexceptions toeverything.But tothinkthatJesusistheexceptioninthiscase,onewouldneedagooddealofpersuasiveevidence.Anditjustdoesn’texist.TheevidenceforJesus’sclaimstobedivinecomesonlyfromthelastoftheNewTestamentGospels,notfromanyearliersources.

Someonemayarguethatthereareotherreasons,apartfromexplicitdivineself-claims,tosuspectthat Jesus sawhimself as divine.For example, hedoes amazingmiracles that surelyonly a divinefigurecoulddo;andheforgivespeople’ssins,whichsurelyisaprerogativeofGodalone;andhe

receivesworship,aspeoplebowdownbeforehim,whichsurely indicates thathewelcomesdivinehonors.

Therearetwopointstostressaboutsuchthings.Thefirstisthatallofthemarecompatiblewithhuman, not just divine, authority. In theHebrewBible the prophets Elijah and Elisha did fantasticmiracles—including healing the sick and raising the dead—through the power ofGod, and in theNewTestamentsodidtheApostlesPeterandPaul;but thatdidnotmakeanyof themdivine.WhenJesusforgivessins,heneversays“Iforgiveyou,”asGodmightsay,but“yoursinsareforgiven,”whichmeans thatGod has forgiven the sins. This prerogative for pronouncing sins forgivenwasotherwisereservedforJewishpriestsinhonorofsacrificesthatworshipersmadeatthetemple.Jesusmaybeclaimingapriestlyprerogative,butnotadivineone.Andkingswereworshiped—evenintheBible(Matt.18:26)—byvenerationandobeisance,justasGodwas.Here,Jesusmaybeacceptingtheworshipduetohimasthefutureking.Noneofthesethingsis,inandofitself,aclearindicationthatJesusisdivine.

But evenmore important, these activitiesmaynot evengoback to thehistorical Jesus. Instead,theymaybe traditionsassigned toJesusby laterstorytellers inorder toheightenhiseminenceandsignificance. Recall one of themain points of this chapter:many traditions in theGospels do notderive from the life of the historical Jesus but represent embellishmentsmadeby storytellerswhowere trying to convert peoplebyconvincing themof Jesus’s superiority and to instruct thosewhowereconverted.These traditionsof Jesus’s eminencecannotpass thecriterionofdissimilarityandarevery likely laterpious expansionsof the stories told abouthim—toldbypeoplewho, afterhisresurrection,didcometounderstandthathewas,insomesense,divine.

WhatwecanknowwithrelativecertaintyaboutJesusisthathispublicministryandproclamationwerenotfocusedonhisdivinity;infact,theywerenotabouthisdivinityatall.TheywereaboutGod.Andabout thekingdom thatGodwasgoing tobring.Andabout theSonofManwhowas soon tobringjudgmentupontheearth.Whenthishappenedthewickedwouldbedestroyedandtherighteouswouldbebroughtintothekingdom—akingdominwhichtherewouldbenomorepain,misery,orsuffering.ThetwelvedisciplesofJesuswouldberulersofthisfuturekingdom,andJesuswouldruleoverthem.JesusdidnotdeclarehimselftobeGod.Hebelievedandtaughtthathewasthefuturekingof the coming kingdomofGod, themessiah ofGod yet to be revealed. Thiswas themessage hedelivered to his disciples, and in the end, it was the message that got him crucified. It was onlyafterward,oncethedisciplesbelievedthattheircrucifiedmasterhadbeenraisedfromthedead,thattheybegantothinkthathemust,insomesense,beGod.

CHAPTER4

TheResurrectionofJesus

WhatWeCannotKnow

IGIVEALOTOFlecturesaroundthecountryeveryyear,notjustatcollegesanduniversities,butalsoforcivicorganizations,divinityschools,andchurches.WhenIgetinvitedtospeakataconservativeevangelicalschoolorchurch,itisalmostalwaysforapublicdebate,inwhichIamaskedtoengagewitha conservative evangelical scholaron some topicofmutual interest, suchas: “CanHistoriansProve That Jesus Was Raised from the Dead?” or “Do We Have the Original Text of the NewTestament?”or“DoestheBibleAdequatelyExplainWhyThereIsSuffering?”Forobviousreasons,thesekindsofaudiencestendtobelessinterestedinhearingwhatIhavetosaythaninseeinghowascholaroftheirowntheologicalpersuasioncanrespondtoandrefutemyviews.Iunderstandthatandactually enjoy these venues: the debates tend to be lively, and the audiences are almost alwaysreceptiveandgracious,eveniftheythinkI’madangerousspokespersonforthedarkside.

In more liberal churches and secular contexts I typically have free reign and more receptiveaudiences,whoareeager tohearwhatscholarshave tosayabout thehistoryof theearlyChristianreligionandabouttheNewTestamentfromahistoricalperspective.Ioftenspeak,inthosecontexts,aboutthehistoricalJesus,layingouttheviewsummarizedinthepreviouschapter—thatJesusisbestunderstoodasanapocalypticprophetwhowasanticipatingthatGodwassoontointerveneinhumanaffairstooverthrowtheforcesofevilandsetupagoodkingdomhereonearth.Aswehaveseen,thisviewwasnotuniquetoJesusbutcouldbefoundintheteachingsofotherapocalypticallymindedJewsofhisday.

WhenIdelivertalkslikethis,Iregularlyandconsistentlygettwoquestionsfrommembersoftheaudience. The first is, “If this is the viewwidely held among scholars, why have I never heard itbefore?”I’mafraidthatthisquestionhasaneasybuttroublinganswer.InmostinstancestheviewofJesus that I have is similar to that taught—with variations here or there, of course—toministerialcandidates in the mainline denominational seminaries (Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist,Episcopalian,andsoon).Sowhyhavetheirparishionersneverhearditbefore?Becausetheirpastorshaven’t told them. Andwhy haven’t their pastors told them? I don’t know for sure, but frommyconversationswithformerseminarians,Ithinkthatmanypastorsdon’twanttomakewaves;ortheydon’tthinktheircongregationsare“ready”tohearwhatscholarsaresaying;ortheydon’tthinkthattheircongregationswanttohearit.Sotheydon’ttellthem.

Thesecondquestion is somewhatmore intellectuallychallenging:“Ifother Jews in Jesus’sdaytaughtthisapocalypticview,then.. .whyJesus?WhyisitthatJesusstartedChristianity,thelargestreligion in the world, when other apocalyptic teachers are forgotten to history? Why did Jesussucceedwhereothersfailed?”

It’sagreatquestion.Sometimesapersonaskingitthinksthereisanobviousanswer,namely,thatJesusmusthavebeenuniqueandcompletelyunlikeall theotherswhoproclaimedthismessage.He

wasGod,andtheywerehumans,soofcoursehestartedanewreligionandtheydidn’t.Inthislineofthinking,theonlywaytoexplaintheenormoussuccessofChristianityistobelievethatGodactuallywasbehinditall.

Theproblemwiththisansweristhatitignoresalltheothergreatreligionsoftheworld.Dowewant to say that all great and successful religions come fromGodhimself and that their founderswere “God”?WasMoses God?Mohammed? Buddha? Confucius?Moreover, the rapid spread ofChristianitythroughouttheancientRomanworldisnotnecessarilyanindicationthatGodwasonitsside.Thosewhosaysoshouldthinkagainaboutotherreligionsofourworld.Justasanexample:thesociologistRodneyStarkhasshownthatduring its first threehundredyears, theChristianreligiongrewatarateof40percenteverydecade.IfChristianitystartedoutasarelativelysmallgroupinthefirst centurybuthad some threemillion followersby the early fourth century—that’s a40percentincreaseeverytenyears.WhatisstrikingtoStarkisthatthisisthesamegrowthrateoftheMormonchurchsinceitstartedinthenineteenthcentury.SothesemainlineChristianswhothinkthatGodmusthavebeenbehindChristianityoritwouldnothavegrownasquicklyasitdid—aretheywillingtosaythesamethingabouttheMormonchurch(whichtheyinfacttendnottosupport)?

Andsoweareleftwithourquestion:WhatisitthatmadeJesussospecial?Infact,aswewillsee,itwasnothismessage.Thatdidnotsucceedmuchatall.Instead,ithelpedgethimcrucified—surelynot a mark of spectacular success. No, what made Jesus different from all the others teaching asimilarmessagewastheclaimthathehadbeenraisedfromthedead.Belief inJesus’sresurrectionchangedabsolutelyeverything.SuchathingwasnotsaidofanyoftheotherapocalypticpreachersofJesus’s day, and the fact that it was said about Jesus made him unique. Without the belief in theresurrection,JesuswouldhavebeenamerefootnoteintheannalsofJewishhistory.Withthebeliefintheresurrection,wehavethebeginningsofthemovementtopromoteJesustoasuperhumanplane.BeliefintheresurrectioniswhateventuallyledhisfollowerstoclaimthatJesuswasGod.

YouwillnoticethatIhavewordedtheprecedingsentencesverycarefully.IhavenotsaidthattheresurrectioniswhatmadeJesusGod.IhavesaidthatitwasthebeliefintheresurrectionthatledsomeofhisfollowerstoclaimhewasGod.Thisisbecause,asahistorian,Idonotthinkwecanshow—historically—that Jesuswas in fact raised from thedead.Tobeclear, I amnot saying theoppositeeither—that historians can use the historical disciplines in order to demonstrate that Jesuswasnotraised from the dead. I argue that when it comes to miracles such as the resurrection, historicalsciencessimplyareofnohelpinestablishingexactlywhathappened.

Religious faith and historical knowledge are two differentways of “knowing.”When I was atMoodyBible Institute,weaffirmedwholeheartedly thewordsofHandel’sMessiah (taken from thebookofJobintheHebrewBible):“IknowthatmyRedeemerliveth.”Butwe“knew”thisnotbecauseofhistoricalinvestigation,butbecauseofourfaith.WhetherJesusisstillalivetoday,becauseofhisresurrection,orindeedwhetheranysuchgreatmiracleshavehappenedinthepast,cannotbe“known”bymeansofhistoricalstudy,butonlyonthebasisoffaith.Thisisnotbecausehistoriansarerequiredtoadopt“unbelievingpresuppositions”or“secularassumptionshostile toreligion.”It ispurelytheresultofthenatureofhistoricalinquiryitself—whetherundertakenbybelieversorunbelievers—asIwilltrytoexplainlaterinthischapter.

Atthesametime,historiansareabletotalkabouteventsthatarenotmiraculousandthatdonotrequirefaithinordertoknowaboutthem,includingthefactthatsomeofthefollowersofJesus(mostofthem?allofthem?)cametobelievethatJesuswasphysicallyraisedfromthedead.Thatbeliefisahistoricalfact.ButotheraspectsoftheaccountsofJesus’sdeatharehistoricallyproblematic.Inthis

chapterandthenextIdiscussboththefactswecanknowandtheclaimswecannotknow,historically.We beginwithwhatwe arenot able to say, either at all orwith relative certainty, about the earlyChristianbeliefintheresurrection.

WhyHistoriansHaveDifficultyDiscussingtheResurrectionIHAVESTRESSEDTHAThistorians,inordertoinvestigatethepast,arenecessarilyrestrictedtodoingsoon the basis of surviving sources. There are sources that describe the events surrounding Jesus’sresurrection,andthefirststeptotakeinexploringtheriseoftheChristians’earlybeliefistoexaminethesesources.ThemostimportantonesaretheGospelsoftheNewTestament,whichareourearliestnarrativesofthediscoveryofJesus’semptytombandofhisappearances,afterhiscrucifixion,tohisdisciples as the livingLord of life.Also critical to our exploration are thewritings of Paul,whoaffirmswithrealfervorhisbeliefthatJesuswasactually,physically,raisedfromthedead.

TheResurrectionNarrativesoftheGospelsWe have already seenwhy theGospels are so problematic for historianswhowant to knowwhatreallyhappened.ThisisespeciallytruefortheGospelaccountsofJesus’sresurrection.Arethesethesortsofsourcesthathistorianswouldlookforwhenexaminingapastevent?Evenapartfromthefactthat theywerewritten forty to sixty-fiveyears after the facts, bypeoplewhowerenot there to seethesethingshappen,whowerelivingindifferentpartsoftheworld,atdifferenttimes,andspeakingdifferentlanguages—apartfromallthis,theyarefilledwithdiscrepancies,someofwhichcannotbereconciled.Infact,theGospelsdisagreeonnearlyeverydetailintheirresurrectionnarratives.

ThesenarrativesarefoundinMatthew28,Mark16,Luke24,andJohn20–21.Readthroughtheaccountsandaskyourselfsomebasicquestions:Whowasthefirstpersontogotothetomb?WasitMaryMagdalenebyherself(John)?orMaryalongwithanotherMary(Matthew)?orMaryalongwithanotherMaryandSalome (Mark)?orMary,Mary, Joanna, andanumberofotherwomen (Luke)?Wasthestonealreadyrolledawaywhentheyarrivedatthetomb(Mark,Luke,andJohn),orexplicitlynot (Matthew)?Whomdid theysee there?Anangel (Matthew),aman (Mark),or twomen(Luke)?Didtheyimmediatelygoandtellsomeofthediscipleswhattheyhadseen(John),ornot(Matthew,Mark, and Luke)? What did the person or people at the tomb tell the women to do? To tell thedisciplesthatJesuswouldmeettheminGalilee(MatthewandMark)?OrtorememberwhatJesushadtoldthemearlierwhenhehadbeeninGalilee(Luke)?Didthewomenthengotellthediscipleswhattheyweretoldtotellthem(MatthewandLuke),ornot(Mark)?DidthedisciplesseeJesus(Matthew,Luke,andJohn),ornot (Mark)?1Wheredid they seehim?—only inGalilee (Matthew),oronly inJerusalem(Luke)?

Thereareotherdiscrepancies,butthisisenoughtogetthepointacross.Ishouldstressthatsomeofthesedifferencescanscarcelybereconciledunlessyoudoalotofinterpretivegymnasticswhenreading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meetdifferentpeopleat the tomb? InMark, theymeetoneman; inLuke, twomen;and inMatthew,oneangel.Thewaythisdiscrepancyissometimesreconciled,byreaderswhocan’tacceptthattherecouldbeagenuinediscrepancyinthetext,isbysayingthatthewomenactuallymettwoangelsatthetomb.Matthewmentionsonlyoneofthembutneverdeniestherewasasecondone;moreover,theangelswereinhumanguise,soLukeclaimstheyweretwomen;Markalsomistakestheangelsasmenbutmentionsonlyone,nottwo,withoutdenyingthereweretwo.Andsotheproblemiseasilysolved!But

it is solved in a very curious way indeed, for this solution is saying, in effect, that what reallyhappenediswhatisnotnarratedbyanyoftheseGospels:fornoneofthemmentionstwoangels!Thiswayofinterpretingthetextsdoessobyimagininganewtextthatisunlikeanyoftheothers,soastoreconcilethefourtooneanother.AnyoneiscertainlyfreetoconstructtheirownGospeliftheywantto,butthat’sprobablynotthebestwaytointerprettheGospelsthatwealreadyhave.

Ortakeasecondexample—onethatisevenmoreglaring.Matthewisexplicitwhenhesaysthatthe disciples are told to go toGalilee since that iswhere theywillmeet Jesus (28:7). They do so(28:16),and that iswhereJesusmeets themandgives themhis finalcommands(28:17–20).This isbothclear-cutandcompletelyatoddswithwhathappensinLuke.There,thedisciplesarenottoldtogo toGalilee. Thewomen are informed at the empty tomb, by the twomen, that when Jesus hadearlierbeeninGalilee,hehadannouncedthathewouldberaised.SincethedisciplesarenottoldtogotoGalilee,theydonotdoso.TheystayinJerusalem,inthelandofJudea.AnditistherethatJesusmeets them “that very day” (24:13). Jesus speakswith them and emphatically instructs themnot toleave the cityuntil they receive thepowerof theSpirit,whichhappensmore than fortydays later,according to Acts 1–2 (that is, they are not to go to Galilee; 24:49). He leads them right outsideJerusalem,tonearbyBethany,andgivesthemhislastinstructionsanddepartsfromthem(24:50–51).Andwelearntheydidashecommanded:theystayedinthecity,worshipinginthetemple(24:53).Inthe book ofActs,written by the same author as the book of Luke,we find out that they stayed inJerusalemformorethanamonth,untilthedayofPentecost(Acts1–2).

Thereisclearlyadiscrepancyhere.InoneGospelthedisciplesimmediatelygotoGalilee,andinthe other they never go there. As New Testament scholar Raymond Brown—himself a RomanCatholicpriest—hasemphasized:“ThuswemustrejectthethesisthattheGospelscanbeharmonizedthrougharearrangementwherebyJesusappearsseveraltimestotheTwelve,firstinJerusalem,theninGalilee. . . .ThedifferentGospelaccountsarenarrativing, so faras substance isconcerned, thesamebasicappearancetotheTwelve,whethertheylocateitinJerusalemorinGalilee.”2

Laterwewillexplorefurtherhowthisdiscrepancymattersforreconstructingtheactualcourseofevents.Fornow it is enough tonote that theearliestGospels say thatwhen Jesuswasarrested,hisdisciplesfled thescene(Mark14;Matt.24:46).Andtheearliestaccountsalsosuggest that itwas inGalilee that theyhadvisionsof Jesusaliveafter thecrucifixion (intimated inMark14:28; stated inMatthew 24). The most plausible explanation is that when the disciples fled the scene for fear ofarrest, theyleftJerusalemandwenthome, toGalilee.Anditwasthere that they—orat leastoneormoreofthem—claimedtoseeJesusaliveagain.

SomepeoplehavearguedthatifJesusreallywasraisedfromthedead,itwouldhavebeensuchaspectaculareventthatofcourseintheirexcitementtheeyewitnesseswouldhavegottenafewdetailsmuddled. Butmy points in the discussion so far are rather simple. First, we are not dealing witheyewitnesses.Wearedealingwithauthors livingdecades later indifferent lands speakingdifferentlanguagesandbasingtheirtalesonstoriesthathadbeeninoralcirculationduringalltheinterveningyears.Second,theseaccountsdonotsimplyhaveminordiscrepanciesinacoupleofdetails;theyareclearlyatoddswithoneanotheronpointafterpoint.Theyarenotthekindsofsourcesthathistorianswouldhopeforindeterminingwhatactuallyhappenedinthepast.WhataboutthewitnessofPaul?

TheWritingsoftheApostlePaulPaulspeaksoftheresurrectionofJesusconstantlythroughoutthesevenlettersthatscholarsagreeheactuallywrote.3NopassagestatesPaul’sviewsmoreclearlyorforcefullythan1Corinthians15,the

so-called resurrection chapter. In this chapterPaul is not intent on “proving” that Jesuswas raisedfromthedead,asitissometimesmisread.Instead,heisassuming,withhisreaders,thatJesusreallywasraised;andheisusingthatassumptiontomakehisbiggerpoint,whichisthis:sinceJesuswasraisedbodilyfromthedead,itisclearthathisfollowers—despitewhatPaul’sChristianopponentsaresaying—havenotyetexperiencedthefutureresurrection.TheresurrectionforPaulisnotaspiritualmatterunrelatedtothebody,asitwasforsomeofhisopponents.Itispreciselythebodythatwillberaisedimmortalonthelastday,whenJesusreturnsintriumphfromheaven.TheChristiansinCorinththereforearenotexperiencing,inthehereandnow,thegloriesoftheresurrectedlife.Thatisyettocome,whentheirbodieswillberaised.

PaulbeginshisdiscussionoftheresurrectionofJesus,andthefutureresurrectionofbelievers,bycitingastandardChristianconfession,orcreed(i.e.,astatementoffaith),thatwasalreadyknowntohisreaders(ashehimselfindicates):

3For I handed over to you among the most important things what I also had received, that Christ died for our sins inaccordancewith the scriptures, 4and that hewas buried; and that hewas raised on the third day in accordancewith thescriptures;5andthatheappearedtoCephas,thentotheTwelve;6thenheappearedtomorethanfivehundredbrothersatonetime,manyofwhomsurviveuntilnow,thoughsomehavefallenasleep.7ThenheappearedtoJames,thentoalltheapostles;8andlastofallheappearedeventome,astooneuntimelyborn.(1Cor.15:3–8)

Paul’slettersarethefirstChristianwritingsthatwehavefromantiquity;hewaswriting,forthemostpart,inthe50softheCommonEra,sosometenorfifteenyearsbeforeourearliestsurvivingGospel,Mark.Itishardtoknowexactlywhen1Corinthianswaswritten;ifweplaceitinthemiddleof Paul’s letter-writing period, we could put it around 55 CE or so—some twenty-five years afterJesus’sdeath.

WhatisstrikingisthatPaulindicatesthatthisstatementoffaithissomethinghealreadyhadtaughtthe Christians in Corinth, presumably when he converted them. And so it must go back to thefoundingofthecommunity,possiblyfourorfiveyearsearlier.Moreover—andthisistheimportantpart—Paulindicatesthathedidnotdevisethisstatementhimselfbutthathe“received”itfromothers.Paulusesthiskindoflanguageelsewherein1Corinthians(see11:22–25),anditisbelievedfarandwide among New Testament specialists that Paul is indicating that this is a tradition alreadywidespread in the Christian church, handed over to him by Christian teachers, possibly even theearlierapostles themselves. Inotherwords, this iswhatNewTestament scholarscall apre-Paulinetradition—one that was in circulation before Paul wrote it and even before he gave it to theCorinthianswhen he first persuaded them to become followers of Jesus. So this is a very ancienttraditionaboutJesus.DoesitgobackeventobeforethetimewhenPaulhimselfjoinedthemovementaroundtheyear33CE,somethreeyearsafterJesushaddied?4Ifso,itwouldbeveryancientindeed!

There is evidence in the passage itself that it, or part of it, is pre-Pauline, and it is possible todetermine justwhichpartswere the original formulation.Aswewill seemore fully inChapter 6,there are a number of “preliterary” traditions in Paul’swritings and in the book ofActs—that is,quotationsofstatementsoffaith,poems,possiblyevenhymnsthatwereincirculationbeforebeingcited in our surviving literary texts. Scholars have devised a number of ways to detect thesepreliterary traditions. For one thing, they tend to be tightly constructed, with terse statements thatcontain words not otherwise attested by the author in question—in this case Paul—and to usegrammaticalformulationsthatareotherwiseforeigntotheauthor.Thisiswhatwefindhereinthis

passage.Forexample,thephrase“inaccordancewiththescriptures”isfoundnowhereelseinPaul’swritings;noristheverb“heappeared”;norisanyreferenceto“theTwelve.”

Thispassagealmostcertainlycontainsapre-Paulineconfession,orcreed,ofsomekind.Butistheentirething,allofvv.3–8,partofthatcreed?Thesecondhalfofv.6(“manyofwhomsurvive.. .”)andallofv.8(“lastofallheappearedeventome...”)arePaul’scommentsonthetradition,sotheycouldnothaveoriginallybeenpartofthecreed.Thereareverygoodreasons,infact,forthinkingthattheoriginalformofthecreedwassimplyvv.3–5,towhichPaulhasaddedsomecommentsofhisownbasedonwhatheknew.One reason for restricting theoriginalpre-Paulinecreed to just thesethreeverses is thatdoingsoproducesavery tightly formulatedcreedal statement that isbrilliantlystructured.Itcontainstwomajorsectionsoffourstatementseachthatcloselyparalleloneanother(inotherwords,thefirststatementofsectiononecorrespondstothefirststatementofsectiontwo,andsoon).Initsoriginalform,then,thecreedwouldhavereadlikethis:

1aChristdied2aForoursins3aInaccordancewiththescriptures4aAndhewasburied.

1bChristwasraised2bOnthethirdday3bInaccordancewiththescriptures4bAndheappearedtoCephas.

The first section is all about Jesus’s death, and the second is all about his resurrection. Theparallelstatementsworklikethis:firstthereisastatementof“fact”(1a:Christdied;1b:Christwasraised);thenthereisatheologicalinterpretationofthefact(2a:hediedforoursins;2b:hewasraisedon the third day), followed by a statement, in each section, that it was “in accordance with thescriptures” (3a and 3b, worded identically in the Greek); and finally a kind of proof is given bymeansofthephysicalevidencefortheclaim(4a:hewasburied—showingthathereallywasdead;4b:heappearedtoCephas[thatis,thedisciplePeter]—showingthathereallywasraised).

Thisthenwastheveryancientpre-PaulinetraditionthatPaulcitesin1Corinthians15andthatheexpands,attheend,bygivingevenmore“witnesses”totheresurrection—includinghimself,thelasttoseeJesusaliveafterward(sometwoorthreeyearsafterJesus’sdeath).SomescholarshavearguedthatthistersestatementoffaithoriginatedinAramaic,meaningthatitmightgoallthewaybacktotheAramaic-speaking followers of Jesus in Palestine during the early years after his death; otherscholarsarenotsosureaboutthis.Ineithercase,itisapowerful,concise,andcleverlyconstructedcreedalstatement.

If this reconstruction of the original form of this statement is correct, several interesting andimportantobservationscanbemade.First,ifitisrightthatthesecondstatementofeachsectionisa“theological interpretation” of the statement of “fact” that precedes it, then the idea that Jesuswasraisedonthethirddayisnotnecessarilyahistoricalrecollectionofwhentheresurrectionhappened,butatheologicalclaimofitssignificance.IshouldpointoutthattheGospelsdonotindicateonwhichdayJesuswasraised.Thewomengotothetombonthethirdday,andtheyfinditempty.ButnoneoftheGospels indicates that Jesusarose thatmorningbefore thewomenshowedup.Hecould just aswell have arisen the day before or even the day before that—just an hour, say, after he had beenburied.TheGospelssimplydon’tsay.

IfPaul’sstatementisindeedatheologicalinterpretationratherthanahistoricalclaim,oneneeds

to figure out what it means. It is important to stress that this “third day” is said to have been inaccordancewiththetestimonyofscripture,whichforanyearlyChristianauthorwouldnothavebeentheNewTestament(whichhadnotyetbeenwritten)buttheHebrewBible.ThereisawidespreadviewamongscholarsthattheauthorofthisstatementisindicatingthatinhisresurrectiononthethirddayJesus is thought tohave fulfilled the sayingof theHebrewprophetHosea:“After twodayshewillreviveus;onthethirddayhewillraiseusup,thatwemaylivebeforehim”(Hos.6:2).Otherscholars—aminorityofthem,althoughIfindmyselfattractedtothisview—thinkthatthereferenceistothebookofJonah,whereJonahwasinthebellyofthegreatfishforthreedaysandthreenightsbeforebeing released and, in a kind of symbolic sense, brought back from the dead (see Jonah 2). Jesushimself is recorded in theGospelsas likeninghisupcomingdeathandresurrection to“thesignofJonah”(Matt.12:39–41).Whether thereferenceis toHoseaorJonah,whywoulditbenecessary tosaythat theresurrectionhappenedonthethirdday?Becausethat iswhatwaspredictedinscripture.ThisisatheologicalclaimthatJesus’sdeathandresurrectionhappenedaccordingtoplan.ThiswillbeanimportantpointforuslaterwhenweconsiderwhatwecansayaboutwhentheearliestfollowersofJesusfirstcametothinkhewasraisedfromthedead—andonwhatgrounds.

Second,itisimportanttorealizethatallthestatementsofthetwosectionsofthecreedaretightlyparalleltooneanotherineveryrespect—exceptone.ThesecondsectioncontainsanameaspartofthetangibleproofforthestatementthatJesuswasraised:“Heappearedto[literally:“hewasseenby”]Cephas.”Thefourthstatementofthefirstsectiondoesnotnameanyauthorizingparty.Therewearetoldsimplythat“hewasburied”—notthathewasburiedbyanyoneinparticular.Giventheeffortthatthe author of this creed has taken to make every statement of the first section correspond to theparallelstatementofthesecondsection,andviceversa,thisshouldgiveuspause.Itwouldhavebeenvery easy indeed to make the parallel precise, simply by saying “he was buried by Joseph [ofArimathea].”Whydidn’ttheauthormakethispreciseparallel?MyhunchisthatitisbecauseheknewnothingaboutaburialofJesusbyJosephofArimathea.IshouldpointoutthatnowhereelsedoesPaulever say anything about Joseph of Arimathea, or the way in which Jesus was buried—not in thiscreed,notintherestof1Corinthians,andnotinanyofhisotherletters.Thetraditionthattherewasaspecific,knownpersonwhoburiedJesusappears tohavebeena laterone.Below,Iwillshowwhytherearereasonstodoubtthatthetraditionishistoricallyaccurate.

Oneother frequentlynoted featureof this creed—and its expansionbyPaul invv. 5–8—is thatPaul seems to be giving an exhaustive account of the people towhom Jesus appeared after beingraised.ThereasonforthinkingthisisthatafterlistingalltheotherswhosawJesus,Paulindicatesthathewas the“lastofall.”This is frequentlyunderstood, rightly I think, tomean thathe isgiving thefullest list he can. But then the list is striking indeed, in no small measure because Paul doesn’tmention anywomen. In theGospels it iswomenwho discover the empty tomb, and in two of theGospels—MatthewandJohn—it iswomenwho first see Jesusaliveafterward.ButPaulnever saysanything about anyone discovering an empty tomb, and he doesn’t mention any resurrectionappearancestowomen—eitherhereorinanyotherpassageofhiswritings.

On the first point, formanyyears scholars have considered it highly significant that Paul, ourearliest“witness”totheresurrection,saysnothingaboutthediscoveryofanemptytomb.Ourearliestaccount of Jesus’s resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3–5) discusses the appearances without mentioning anempty tomb, while our earliest Gospel, Mark, narrates the discovery of the empty tomb withoutdiscussinganyoftheappearances(Mark16:1–8).Thishasledsomescholars,suchasNewTestamentexpertDanielSmith,tosuggestthatthesetwosetsoftradition—theemptytombandtheappearancesofJesusafterhisdeath—probablyoriginatedindependentlyofoneanotherandwereputtogetherasa

singletraditiononlylater—forexample,intheGospelsofMatthewandLuke.5Ifthisisthecase,thenthestoriesofJesus’sresurrectionwereindeedbeingexpanded,embellished,modified,andpossiblyeveninventedinthelongprocessoftheirbeingtoldandretoldovertheyears.

Butwhatliesatthefoundationofthesestories?What,ifanything,canwesayhistoricallyabouttheresurrectionevent?AtthispointIneedtopausetoexplainwhyhistorians—insofarasandaslongas they are working as historians—are unable to use knowledge derived from the historicaldisciplines toaffirmthatJesusreallywas,physically, raisedfromthedead,even if theypersonallybelieveithappened.TheviewIstakeouthereisthatifhistorians,oranyoneelse,dobelievethis,itisbecauseoftheirfaith,notbecauseoftheirhistoricalinquiry.Ishouldstressthatunbelievers(likeme)cannotdisprove the resurrectioneither,onhistoricalgrounds.This isbecausebelieforunbelief inJesus’sresurrectionisamatteroffaith,notofhistoricalknowledge.

TheResurrectionandtheHistorianThereasonhistorianscannotproveordisprovewhetherGodhasperformedamiracleinthepast—suchasraisingJesusfromthedead—isnotthathistoriansarerequiredtobesecularhumanistswithananti-supernaturalist bias. Iwant to stress thispointbecause conservativeChristian apologists, inordertoscoredebatingpoints,oftenclaimthatthisisthecase.Intheirview,ifhistoriansdidnothaveanti-supernaturalistbiasesorassumptions,theywouldbeabletoaffirmthehistorical“evidence”thatJesus was raised from the dead. I should point out that these Christian apologists almost neverconsider the “evidence” for othermiracles from the past that have comparable—or even better—evidence tosupport them: forexample,dozensofRomansenatorsclaimed thatKingRomuluswassnatchedup intoheaven from theirmidst; andmany thousandsof committedRomanCatholicscanattest that the Blessed Virgin Mary has appeared to them, alive—a claim that fundamentalist andconservative evangelical Christians roundly discount, even though the “evidence” for it is veryextensive. It’salwayseasy toscream“anti-supernaturalbias”whensomeonedoesnot think that themiraclesofone’sowntraditioncanbehistoricallyestablished;it’smuchhardertoadmitthatmiraclesofothertraditionsarejustasreadilydemonstrated.

ButtheviewImapouthereisthatnoneofthesedivinemiracles,oranyothers,canbeestablishedhistorically.ConservativeevangelicalChristianapologistsarerighttosaythatthisisbecauseofthepresuppositionsoftheinvestigators.Butnotforthereasontheythinkorsay.

Thefirstthingtostressisthateveryonehaspresuppositions,anditisimpossibletolivelife,thinkdeep thoughts, have religious experiences, or engage in historical inquiry without havingpresuppositions.Thelifeofthemindcannotproceedwithoutpresuppositions.Thequestion,though,isalwaysthis:Whataretheappropriatepresuppositionsforthetaskathand?Thepresuppositionsthatthe Roman Catholic believer brings to his experience of the mass will be different from thepresuppositionsthatthescientistbringstoherexplorationoftheBigBangtheoryanddifferentfromthe presuppositions that historians bring to their study of the Inquisition. So let me stress thathistorians,workingashistorians,doindeedhavepresuppositions.Itisimportant,therefore,toknowsomething about the kind of presuppositions historians have when they are engaged in the act ofreconstructingwhathappenedinthepast.

Mosthistorianswouldagree that theynecessarilypresuppose that thepastdidhappen.Wecan’tactuallyprove it,ofcourse, thewaywecanprovea scientificexperiment.Wecan repeat scientificexperiments,andbydoingsowecanestablishpredictiveprobabilitiesthatcanshowuswhatalmostcertainlywill happen the next timewe do the experiment.Historians can’t do thiswith past events

because theycan’t repeat thepast.Andsohistorianshavedifferentwaysofproceeding.Theydon’tusescientific“proofs”butlookforotherkindsofevidenceforwhathashappenedbeforenow.Thebasicoperatingassumptionthough,whichitselfcannotbeproved,isthatsomethingdidinfacthappenbeforenow.

Moreover, historians presuppose that it is possible for us to establish, with some degree ofprobability,whathashappenedinthepast.Wecandecidewhetheritisprobablythecase,ornot,thattheHolocausthappened(yesitdid),thatJuliusCaesarcrossedtheRubicon(yeshedid),andthatJesusof Nazareth actually existed (yes he did). Historians maintain that some of the things in the past(almost) certainly happened, other things very probably happened, others somewhat probablyhappened,otherspossiblyhappened,othersprobablydidnothappen,othersalmostcertainlydidnothappen,andsoon.It is(virtually)certainthat theUniversityofNorthCarolinabasketball team,theTarHeels,wonthenationalchampionshipin2009.Itisalso(virtually)certainthattheygotknockedoutof theNCAAtournament in2013byKansas. (It isabsolutely certain that thiswasanenormoustragedy,butthat’savaluejudgment,notahistoricalclaim.)

Relatedtothepresuppositionthatit ispossibletoestablishwithdegreesofprobabilitywhathashappenedinthepast(somethingsmoreprobablethanothers)is theassumptionthat“evidence”forpast events exists, so reconstructing the past is not a matter of pure guesswork. And historianspresuppose that some evidence is better than other evidence. Eyewitness reports are, as a rule,superiortohearsayfromyears,decades,orcenturieslater.Extensivecorroborationamongmultiplesourcesthatshownoevidenceofcollaboratingwithoneanotherisfarbetterthaneithercollaborationornoncorroboration.Asourcewhoprovidesdisinterestedoff-the-cuffcommentsaboutapersonoreventisbetterthanasourcewhomakesinterestedclaimsaboutapersonoreventinordertoscoreanideologicallydrivenpoint.Whathistorianswant,inshort,arelotsofwitnesses,closetothetimeoftheevents,whoarenotbiasedtowardtheirsubjectmatterandwhocorroborateoneanother ’spointswithoutshowingsignsofcollaboration.Wouldthatwehadsuchsourcesforallsignificanthistoricalevents!

Thesethenareamongthekindsofpresuppositionsthathistorianstendtoshare.Ontheotherhand,somepresuppositionsaredecidedlynotatallappropriateforhistorianswhowant toestablishwhathappenedinthepast.Itisnotappropriate,forexample,forahistoriantopresupposeherconclusionsandtotrytolocateonlytheevidencethatsupportsthosepresupposedconclusions.Theinvestigationneeds to be conducted without prejudice as to its outcome, simply to see what really happened.Similarly,itisnotappropriateforahistoriantotreatevidenceasirrelevantwhenitdoesnothappentobeconvenienttohispersonalviews.

Moreover—andhereiswheretherubbermeetstheroad—itisnotappropriateforahistoriantopresupposeaperspectiveorworldviewthatisnotgenerallyheld.“Historians”whotrytoexplainthefoundingof theUnitedStatesor theoutcomeof theFirstWorldWarby invoking thevisitationofMartiansasamajorfactorofcausalitywillnotgetawidehearingfromotherhistorians—andwillnot,infact,beconsideredtobeengaginginserioushistoriography.Suchaviewpresupposesnotionsthatarenotgenerallyheld—thatthereareadvancedlife-formsoutsideourexperience,thatsomeofthemliveonanotherplanetwithinoursolarsystem, that theseotherbeingshavesometimesvisitedtheearth,andthattheirvisitationiswhatdeterminedtheoutcomeofsignificanthistoricalevents.Allthese presuppositionsmay in fact be true—there is noway for historians to knowoneway or theother, using the historical approach to establishing what happened in the past. But since they arepresuppositionsthatthevastmajorityofusdonotshare,historicalreconstructioncannotbebasedonthem.Anyonewhohas thesepresuppositionshas tosilence them,siton them,orotherwisesquelch

themwhenengagingintheirhistoricalinvestigations.This is also true of all religious and theological beliefs that a historian happens to have: these

beliefs cannot determine the outcome of a historical investigation, because they are not generallyshared.ThismeansthatahistoriancannotestablishthattheangelMoronimaderevelationstoJosephSmith, as in theMormon tradition.Suchviewspresuppose that angels exist, thatMoroni is oneofthem,andthatJosephSmithwasparticularlychosentoreceivearevelationfromonhigh.Thesearetheologicalbeliefs; theyarenotbasedonhistorical evidence.Maybe there is anangelMoroniandmaybehedidrevealsecrettruthstoJosephSmith,butthereisnowayforhistorianstoestablishanyofthat:todosowouldrequireacceptingcertaintheologicalviewsthatarenotheldbythemajorityofother historians—for example, those who are Roman Catholics, Reformed Jews, Buddhists, andnonreligious hard-core atheists.Historical evidencehas to be open to examinationby everyoneofeveryreligiousbelief.

Thebelief that aChristianmiracle—anyChristianmiracle—happened in thepast is rooted inaparticular set of theological beliefs (the same is true of Jewishmiracles,Muslimmiracles,Hindumiracles,andsoon).Withoutsuchbeliefs,miraclescannotbeestablishedashavinghappened.Sincehistorians cannot assume these beliefs, they cannot demonstrate historically that such miracleshappened.

Atthesametime,insomecasesinwhichapastmiracleisnarrated,elementsoftheepisodemaybe subject to historical inquiry even if the overarching claim that God has done somethingmiraculouscannotpossiblybeacceptedonthebasisofhistoricalevidence(sincehistoricalevidenceprecludesanyparticularsetofreligiousbeliefs).

Letme illustrate.My grandmother firmly believed that the Pentecostal evangelistOralRobertscouldhealthesick,thediseased,andthedisabledbyprayingoverthemandtouchingthem.Now,intheoryitwouldbepossibleforahistoriantoexamineacaseinwhichapersonhadsymptomsofadiseasebeforehavinganencounterwithOralRobertsandthattheydisappearedaftertheencounter.Thehistoriancouldreportthatyes,apparentlythepersonwassickbeforeandwasnotsickafterward.Butwhatthehistoriancannotreport—ifsheisactingasahistorian—isthatOralRobertshealedtheperson through thepowerofGod.Otherexplanationsarepossible thatareopen toexaminationbyscholarswithout any theological presuppositions required for the “divine solution”—for example,thatitwasakindofpsychosomatichealing(thatis,thepersonbelievedsothoroughlythathewouldbehealed that themindhealed theailment);or that thepersonwasonlyapparentlyhealed(thenextdayhewasagainsickasadog);orthathewasnotreallysickinthefirstplace;orthatitwasahoax,or, well, lots of other explanations. These other “explanations” can explain the same data. Thesupernaturalexplanation,ontheotherhand,cannotbeappealedtoasahistoricalresponsebecause(1)historianshavenoaccesstothesupernaturalrealm,and(2)itrequiresasetoftheologicalbeliefsthatarenotgenerallyheldbyallhistoriansdoingthiskindofinvestigation.

SotoowiththeresurrectionofJesus.Historianscan,intheory,examineaspectsofthetradition.Intheory,forexample,ahistoriancouldlookintothequestionofwhetherJesusreallywasburiedinaknowntombandwhetherthreedayslaterthatsametombwasfoundtobeempty,withnobodyinit.What thehistoriancannotconclude,asahistorian, is thatGod thereforemusthaveraised thebodyand taken itup toheaven.Thehistorianhasnoaccess to information like that, and thatconclusionrequiresasetoftheologicalpresuppositionsthatnotallhistoriansshare.Moreover,itispossibletocomeupwithperfectlysensibleothersolutionsas towhyaonce-occupied tombmayhavebecomeempty:someonestolethebody;someoneinnocentlydecidedtomovethebodytoanothertomb;the

wholestorywas infacta legend, that is, theburialanddiscoveryofanempty tombwere tales thatlaterChristiansinventedtopersuadeothersthattheresurrectionindeedhappened.

SotoothehistoriancanlookintothequestionofwhetherthedisciplesreallyhadvisionsofJesusafter his death. People have visions all the time. Sometimes they see things that are there, andsometimes theysee things thatarenot there. (I’lldiscuss thismore fully in thenextchapter.)Whathistorianscannotconclude,however,ashistorians,isthatthediscipleshadvisionsofJesusafterhewas really, actually dead and that itwasbecause Jesus really, actually appeared to themalive afterGodhadraisedhimfromthedead.Thisconclusionwouldberootedintheologicalpresuppositionsnotgenerallyheldbyallhistorians.

Topressthepointfurther,itisintheorypossibleeventosaythatJesuswascrucified,andburied,and thenhewasseenalive,bodily,afterward.Ahistoriancould, in theory,argue thispointwithoutappealing to divine causality—that is,without saying thatGod raised Jesus from the dead. This isbecause we do have (numerous) instances within our ownworld of near-death experiences, whensomeoneapparently(orreally?)diesandthenwakesupagaintotellthetale.Recognizingthatpeoplehavesuchexperiencesdoesnotrequireabeliefinthesupernatural.Ofcourse,itwouldbeadifferentmatterifapersonwasdeadforninety-fiveyearsandthencameback.Butthatneverhappensinnear-deathexperiences. Instead, aperson isdead,or apparentlydead (howeverwedefine“dead”), for abrieftimeandthensomehowcomesbacktolife.DidJesushavethatkindofexperience?Idoubtit,butitisatleastaplausiblehistoricalconclusion.WhatisnotaplausiblehistoricalconclusionisthatGodraisedJesusintoanimmortalbodyandtookhimuptoheavenwherehesitsonathroneathisright hand. That conclusion is rooted in all sorts of theological views that are not widely sharedamonghistorians,andsoisamatteroffaith,nothistoricalknowledge.

Atthisstageitisimportanttostressafundamentalpoint.History,forhistorians,isnotthesameas“thepast.”Thepastiseverythingthathashappenedbefore;historyiswhatwecanestablishashavinghappenedbefore,usinghistoricalformsofevidence.Historicalevidenceisnotandcannotbebasedonreligiousandtheologicalassumptionsthatsome,butnotall,ofusshare.Therearelotsandlotsofthings from the past that we cannot establish as having happened. Sometimes, this is because oursourcesaresopaltry.(Andso,forexample,itisimpossibletoestablishwhatmygrandfatherhadforlunchonMay15,1954.)Othertimes,itisbecausehistory,asestablishedbyhistorians,isbasedonlyonsharedpresuppositions.AndamongthesesharedpresuppositionsarenotthesortsofreligiousandtheologicalviewsthatmakeitpossibletoconcludethatJesuswasexaltedtoheavenafterhediedandallowed to sit at God’s right hand, never to die again. This is the traditional Christian belief, butpeopledonothold iton thebasisofhistoricalevidencebutbecause theyaccept itbyfaith.For thesame reason,historianscannot conclude that the thief crucifiedwith Jesuswasexaltedandwas thefirsthumantoenterheavenuponhisdeath,asclaimedbyaGospelknownastheNarrativeofJosephof Arimathea; or that the Blessed Virgin Mary has appeared to thousands of her followers, asnumerous eyewitnesses attest; or that Apollonius of Tyana came to one of his followers after heascendedtoheaven,aswehaveonthebasisofeyewitnesstestimonyreportedlater.Alloftheseclaimspresupposereligiousbeliefsthatcannotbepartofthearsenalofhistoricalpresuppositions.

Withallthisinmind,whatcanwesay—historically—aboutthetraditionsofJesus’sresurrection?Ifwecan’tknow,historically,whetherGodactually raisedhimfrom thedead,whatcanweknow?Andwhatelsecanwenotknow?Aswewillsee,onethingwecanknowwithrelativecertaintyisthatthebelief thatJesuswasraisedfromthedeadis thekeytounderstandingwhyChristianseventuallybegantothinkofhimasGod.Butfirst,whatwecannotknow.

TheResurrection:WhatWeCannotKnowINADDITION TO THE resurrection itself—the act ofGodbywhichhe raised Jesus from the dead—anumber of other traditions are subject to historical doubt. The two Imention herewill come as asurprisetomanyreaders.Inmyjudgment,wecannotknowthatJesusreceivedadecentburialandthathistombwaslaterdiscoveredtobeempty.

Thesetwotraditionsobviouslystandhand-in-hand,inthatthesecondmakesnosenseunlessthefirstishistoricallytrue.NoonecouldhavediscoveredthatJesuswasnolongerinhistombifhehadneverbeenburied ina tombin thefirstplace(although thereversedoesnotnecessarily follow: intheoryJesuscouldhavebeendecentlyburied,andthetombwasneverdiscoveredempty).Andsoinmany respects the second claim depends on the first. Therefore, I devote more discussion to it,explainingwhywecannotknowonhistoricalgroundswhetherJosephofArimatheaburiedJesus,astheGospelsclaimhedid.

DidJesusReceiveaDecentBurial?Accordingtoourearliestaccount,theGospelofMark,Jesuswasburiedbyapreviousunnamedandunknownfigure,JosephofArimathea,“arespectedmemberofthecouncil”(Mark15:43)—thatis,aJewish aristocrat who belonged to the Sanhedrin, which was the ruling body made up of “chiefpriests,elders,andscribes”(14:53).AccordingtoMark15:43,Josephsummoneduphiscourageandasked Pilate for Jesus’s body. Pilate granted Joseph his wish, and Joseph took the body from thecross,wrappeditinalinenshroud,“laiditinatombthathadbeenhewnoutoftherock,”andthenrolledastoneinfrontofit(15:44–47).MaryMagdaleneandanotherwomannamedMarysawwherethishappened(15:48).

Letme stress that all of this—or something verymuch like it—needs to happenwithinMark’snarrative in order forwhat happens next tomake sense, namely, that on the day after theSabbath,MaryMagdaleneandtwootherwomengotothetombandfinditempty.IftherewerenotombforJesus,orifnooneknewwherethetombwas,thebodilyresurrectioncouldnotbeproclaimed.Youhavetohaveaknowntomb.

Butwasthereone?DidJosephofArimatheareallyburyJesus?

GeneralConsiderationsTherearenumerousreasonsfordoubtingthetraditionofJesus’sburialbyJoseph.Foronething,itishard tomakehistorical sense of this tradition justwithin the context ofMark’s narrative. Joseph’sidentification as a respected member of the Sanhedrin should immediately raise questions. Markhimselfsaid thatatJesus’s trial,which tookplace thepreviousevening, the“wholecouncil”of theSanhedrin(notjustsomeormostofthem—butallofthem)triedtofindevidence“againstJesustoputhimtodeath”(14:55).Attheendofthistrial,becauseofJesus’sstatementthathewastheSonofGod (14:62), “they all condemned him as deserving death” (14:64). In other words, according toMark,thisunknownperson,Joseph,wasoneofthepeoplewhohadcalledforJesus’sdeathjustthenightbeforehewascrucified.Why,afterJesusisdead,ishesuddenlyriskinghimself(asimpliedbythefactthathehadtogatheruphiscourage)andseekingtodoanactofmercybyarrangingforadecentburialforJesus’scorpse?Markgivesusnoclue.6MyhunchisthatthetrialnarrativeandtheburialnarrativecomefromdifferentsetsoftraditionsinheritedbyMark.OrdidMarksimplyinventoneofthetwotraditionshimselfandoverlooktheapparentdiscrepancy?

In any event, a burial by Joseph is clearly a historical problem in light of other passages justwithin theNewTestament. I pointed out earlier that Paul shows no evidence of knowing anythingaboutaJosephofArimatheaorJesus’sburialbya“respectedmemberof thecouncil.”ThisdatumwasnotincludedintheveryearlycreedthatPaulquotesin1Corinthians15:3–5,andiftheauthorofthatcreedhadknownsuchathing,hesurelywouldhaveincludedit,sincewithoutnamingthepersonwho buried Jesus, aswe have seen, he created an imbalancewith the second portion of the creedwhere he does name the person to whom Jesus appeared (Cephas). Thus, this early creed knowsnothingaboutJoseph.AndPaulalsobetraysnoknowledgeofhim.

Moreover, another tradition of Jesus’s burial says nothing about Joseph of Arimathea. As Ipointedoutearlier,thebookofActswaswrittenbythesamepersonwhowrotetheGospelofLuke.WhenwritingLuke, thisunknownauthor (weobviouslycallhimLuke,butwedon’tknowwhohereallywas)usedanumberofearlierwrittenandoralsourcesforhisstories,ashehimselfindicates(Luke1:1–4).ScholarstodayareconvincedthatoneofhissourceswastheGospelofMark,andsoLukeincludesthestoryofJosephofArimatheainhisversionofJesus’sdeathandresurrection.WhenLukewrotehissecondvolume,thebookofActs,hehadyetothersourcesavailabletohim.Actsisnotaboutthelife,death,andresurrectionofJesusbutaboutthespreadoftheChristianchurchthroughouttheRomanempireafterward.Aboutone-fourthofthebookofActsconsistsofspeechesmadebyitsmaincharacters,mainlyPeterandPaul—speeches,forexample,toconvertpeopletobelieveinJesusortoinstructthosewhoalreadybelieve.ScholarshavelongrecognizedthatLukehimselfwrotethesespeeches—theyarenotthespeechesthattheseapostlesreallydeliveredatonetimeoranother.Lukeiswriting decades after the events he narrates, and no one at the time was taking notes. Ancienthistoriansasawholemadeupthespeechesoftheirmaincharacters,assuchastalwarthistorianastheGreekThucydidesexplicitlytellsus(PeloponnesianWar1.22.1–2).Theyhadlittlechoice.

WhenLuke composedhis speeches, however, it appears that he did so, in part, on the basis ofearliersources thathadcomedowntohim—justashisaccountsofJesus’s teachings in theGospelcamefromearliersources(suchasMark).But ifdifferent traditions(speeches,forexample)comefrom different sources, there is no guarantee that they will stand in complete harmony with oneanother.Iftheydonotstandinharmony,itisalmostalwaysbecausesomeoneischangingthestoriesormakingsomethingup.

ThatmakesPaul’sspeechinActs13veryinteresting.PaulisspeakinginasynagogueserviceinAntioch of Pisidia, and he uses the occasion to tell the congregation that the Jewish leaders inJerusalemhadsinnedseverelyagainstGodbyhavingJesuskilled:“Thoughtheycouldchargehimwithnothingdeservingdeath,yettheyaskedPilatetohavehimkilled.Andwhentheyhadfulfilledallthatwaswrittenofhim,theytookhimdownfromthetreeandlaidhiminatomb”(Acts13:28–29).

ThismayappeartoharmonizegenerallywithwhattheGospelssayaboutJesus’sdeathandburial—in that hedied andwasburied—buthere it is not a singlememberof theSanhedrinwhoburiesJesus,butthecouncilasawhole.Thisisadifferenttradition.ThereisnowordofJosephhere,anymore than there is inPaul’s letters.Does this pre-Lukan tradition represent an older tradition thanwhat is found inMarkabout JosephofArimathea? Is theoldest survivingburial traditionone thatsaysJesuswasburiedbyagroupofJews?

Itwouldmakesensethatthiswastheoldertraditionofthetwo.AnytraditionthatisgoingtoleaduptoanemptytombsimplyhastoshowthatJesuswasproperlyburied,inatomb.Butwhocoulddotheburial?Accordingtoallthetraditions,JesusdidnothaveanyfamilyinJerusalem,andsotherewasnopossibilityofafamilytombinwhichtolayhimorfamilymemberstodotherequisitework

ofburial.Moreover,theaccountsconsistentlyreportthathisfollowershadallfledthescene,sotheycouldnotdothejob.TheRomanswerenotabouttodoit,forreasonsthatwillbecomeclearbelow.That leavesonlyonechoice. If thefollowersofJesusknewthathe“had” tobeburied ina tomb—sinceotherwisetherecouldbenostoryaboutthetombbeingempty—andtheyhadtoinventastorythat described this burial, then the only ones who could possibly do the deed were the Jewishauthoritiesthemselves.Andsothatistheoldesttraditionwehave,asinActs13:29.Possiblythisisthetraditionthatliesbehind1Corinthians15:4aswell:“andhewasburied.”

Astheburialtraditioncametobetoldandretold,itpossiblybecameembellishedandmademoreconcrete.Storytellerswereapt toadddetails tostories thatwerevague,or togivenamestopeopleotherwiseleftnamelessinatradition,ortoaddnamedindividualstostoriesthatoriginallymentionedonlynamelessindividualsorundifferentiatedgroupsofpeople.ThisisatraditionthatlivedonlongaftertheNewTestamentperiod,asmyownteacherBruceMetzgershowedsoelegantlyinhisarticle“NamesfortheNameless.”7HereheshowedallthetraditionsofpeoplewhowereunnamedinNewTestamentstoriesreceivingnameslater;forexample,thewisemenarenamedinlatertraditions,asare priests serving on the Sanhedrin when they condemned Jesus and the two robbers who werecrucified with him. In the story of Joseph of Arimathea we may have an early instance of thephenomenon:whatwas originally a vague statement that the unnamed Jewish leaders buried Jesusbecomesastoryofoneleaderinparticular,whoisnamed,doingso.

Inaddition,wehaveclearevidenceintheGospeltraditionsthatastimewenton,andstorieswereembellished, there was a tendency to find “good guys” among the “bad guys” of the stories. Forexample,inMark’sGospelbothofthecriminalsbeingcrucifiedwithJesusmalignandmockhimonthecross;inLuke’slaterGospelonlyoneofthetwodoesso,andtheotherconfessesfaithinJesusandaskshimtorememberhimwhenhecomesintohiskingdom(Luke23:39–43).InJohn’sGospelthereisanadditionalgoodguyamongtheSanhedrinbadguyswhowantstohelpwithJesus’sburial,asNicodemusaccompaniesJosephtodohisdutiestoJesus’scorpse(John19:38–42).MostnotableisPontiusPilate,who,asathoroughlybadguy,condemnedJesustodeathinourearliestGospelMark.But he does so only with great reluctance in Matthew and only after explicitly declaring JesusinnocentthreetimesinbothLukeandJohn.InlaterGospelsfromoutsidetheNewTestament,Pilateisportrayedasanincreasinglyinnocentgoodguy,tothepointthatheactuallyconvertsandbecomesabeliever in Jesus. In part, this ongoing and increasing exoneration of Pilate is enacted in order toshowwhere the realguilt for Jesus’sundeserveddeath lies.For theseauthors living longafter thefact,theguiltlieswiththerecalcitrantJews.ButthepatternisalsopartofaprocessoftryingtofindsomeonegoodinthebarrelofrottenopponentsofJesus.NamingJosephofArimatheaasakindofsecretadmirerorrespecterorevenfollowerofJesusmaybepartofthesameprocess.

In addition to the rather general considerations I have just given for questioning the idea thatJosephofArimatheaburied Jesus, there are threemore specific reasons fordoubting the traditionthatJesusreceivedadecentburialatall,inatombthatcouldlaterberecognizedasempty.

RomanPracticesofCrucifixionSometimesChristianapologistsarguethatJesushadtobetakenoffthecrossbeforesunsetonFridaybecausethenextdaywastheSabbathanditwasagainstJewishlaw,oratleastJewishsensitivities,toallow a person to remain on the cross during the Sabbath. Unfortunately, the historical recordsuggests just theopposite. Itwasnot JewswhokilledJesus,andso theyhadnosayaboutwhenhewouldbetakendownfromthecross.Moreover,theRomanswhodidcrucifyhimhadnoconcernto

obeyJewishlawandvirtuallynointerestinJewishsensitivities.Quitethecontrary.Whenitcametocrucifiedcriminals—inthiscase,someonechargedwithcrimesagainstthestate—therewasregularlyno mercy and no concern for anyone’s sensitivities. The point of crucifixion was to torture andhumiliateapersonasfullyaspossible,andtoshowanybystanderswhathappenstosomeonewhoisatroublemakerintheeyesofRome.Partofthehumiliationanddegradationwasthebodybeingleftonthecrossafterdeathtobesubjecttoscavenginganimals.

JohnDominicCrossanhasmadetheratherinfamoussuggestionthatJesus’sbodywasnotraisedfromthedeadbutwaseatenbydogs.8WhenIfirstheardthissuggestion,IwasnolongeraChristianandsowasnotreligiouslyoutraged,butIdidthinkitwasexcessiveandsensationalist.ButthatwasbeforeIdidanyrealresearchonthematter.Myviewnowisthatwedonotknow,andcannotknow,whatactuallyhappenedtoJesus’sbody.Butitisabsolutelytruethatasfaraswecantellfromallthesurvivingevidence,whatnormallyhappenedtoacriminal’sbodyisthatitwaslefttodecomposeandserveasfoodforscavenginganimals.Crucifixionwasmeanttobeapublicdisincentivetoengageinpoliticallysubversiveactivities,andthedisincentivedidnotendwiththepainanddeath—itcontinuedonintheravagesworkedonthecorpseafterward.

Evidence for this comes from a wide range of sources. An ancient inscription found on thetombstoneofamanwhowasmurderedbyhisslaveinthecityofCariatellsusthatthemurdererwas“hung...aliveforthewildbeastsandbirdsofprey.”9TheRomanauthorHoracesaysinoneofhislettersthataslavewasclaimingtohavedonenothingwrong,towhichhismasterreplied,“Youshallnotthereforefeedthecarrioncrowsonthecross”(Epistle1.16.46–48).10TheRomansatiristJuvenalspeaksof“thevulture[that]hurriesfromthedeadcattleanddogsandcorpses,tobringsomeofthecarrion to her offspring” (Satires 14.77–78).11 The most famous interpreter of dreams from theancientworld, aGreekSigmundFreudnamedArtemidorus,writes that it is auspicious for a poormaninparticulartohaveadreamaboutbeingcrucified,since“acrucifiedmanisraisedhighandhissubstanceissufficienttokeepmanybirds”(DreamBook2.53).12AndthereisabitofgallowshumorintheSatyriconofPetronius,aone-timeadvisortotheemperorNero,aboutacrucifiedvictimbeingleftfordaysonthecross(chaps.11–12).

Itisunfortunatethatwedonothavefromtheancientworldanyliterarydescriptionoftheprocessof crucifixion, sowe are left guessing about the details of how it was carried out. But consistentreferencestothefateofthecrucifiedshowthatpartoftheordealinvolvedbeingleftasfodderforthescavengers upon death. As the conservative Christian commentatorMartin Hengel once observed:“Crucifixionwasaggravatedfurtherbythefactthatquiteoftenitsvictimswereneverburied.Itwasastereotypedpicturethatthecrucifiedvictimservedasfoodforwildbeastsandbirdsofprey.Inthiswayhishumiliationwasmadecomplete.”13

I shouldpointout thatother conservativeChristian commentatorshave claimed that therewereexceptionstothisrule,asindicatedinthewritingsofPhilo,andthatJewsweresometimesallowedtoburypeoplewhohadbeencrucified.Infact,however,thisisamisreadingoftheevidencefromPhilo,ascanbeseensimplybyquotinghiswordsatlength(emphasisismine):

Rulerswhoconduct theirgovernmentas they shouldanddonotpretend tohonourbutdo reallyhonour theirbenefactorsmake a practice of not punishing any condemned person until those notable celebrations in honour of the birthdays of theillustriousAugustanhouseareover....Ihaveknowncaseswhenontheeveofaholidayofthiskind,peoplewhohavebeencrucifiedhavebeentakendownandtheirbodiesdeliveredtotheirkinsfolk,becauseitwasthoughtwelltogivethemburialandallowthemtheordinaryrites.Foritwasmeetthatthedeadalsoshouldhavetheadvantageofsomekindtreatmentuponthebirthdayoftheemperorandalsothatthesanctityofthefestivalshouldbemaintained.14

Whenthestatementisreadintoto,itisclearlyseentoprovidetheexceptionthatprovestherule.Philo is mentioning this kind of exceptional case precisely because it goes against establishedpractice. Two things should be noted. The first, and less important, is that in the cases that Philomentions, thebodieswere takendown so that they couldbegiven to the crucifiedperson’s familymembersfordecentburial—thatis, itwasafavordoneforcertainfamilies,andonemightassumethesewereelitefamilieswithhighconnections.Jesus’sfamilydidnothavehighconnections;theydidnothavethemeansofburyinganyoneinJerusalem;theyweren’tevenfromJerusalem;noneofthemknewanyof the ruling authorities to ask for thebody; andwhat ismore, inour earliest accounts,noneofthem,evenhismother,wasactuallyattheevent.

ThebiggerpointhastodowithwhenandwhytheseexceptionsPhilomentionsweremade:whenaRomangovernorchosetohonoraRomanemperor ’sbirthday—inotherwords,tohonoraRomanleaderonaRomanholiday.ThishasnothingtodowithJesus’scrucifixion,whichdidnotoccuronanemperor ’sbirthday.IthappenedduringaJewishPassoverfeast—aJewishfestivalwidelyrecognizedasfosteringanti-Romansentiments. It is just theoppositekindofoccasion from thatmentioned inPhilo.Andwehavenorecordatall—none—ofgovernorsmakingexceptionsinanycasesuchasthat.

Insum,thecommonRomanpracticewastoallowthebodiesofcrucifiedpeopletodecomposeonthecrossandbeattackedbyscavengersaspartofthedisincentiveforcrime.Ihavenotrunacrossanycontraryindicationsinanyancientsource.Itisalwayspossiblethatanexceptionwasmade,ofcourse.ButitmustberememberedthattheChristianstorytellerswhoindicatedthatJesuswasanexceptiontotherulehadanextremelycompellingreasontodoso.IfJesushadnotbeenburied,histombcouldnotbedeclaredempty.

GreekandRomanPracticesofUsingCommonGravesforCriminalsMysecondreasonfordoubtingthatJesusreceivedadecentburialisthatatthetime,criminalsofallsortswere,asarule,tossedintocommongraves.Again,arangeofevidenceisavailablefrommanytimes and places. The Greek historian of the first century BCE Diodorus Siculus speaks of a warbetweenPhilipofMacedonia(thefatherofAlexandertheGreat)inwhichhelosttwentymentotheenemy,theLocrians.WhenPhilipaskedfortheirbodiesinordertoburythem,theLocriansrefused,indicating that “it was the general law that temple-robbers should be cast forth without burial”(LibraryofHistory16.25.2).15Fromaround100CE,theGreekauthorDioChrysostomindicatesthatinAthens,anyonewhosuffered“atthehandsofthestateforacrime”was“deniedburial,sothatinthefuturetheremaybenotraceofawickedman”(Discourses31.85).16AmongtheRomans,welearnthatafterabattlefoughtbyOctavian(thelaterCaesarAugustus,emperorwhenJesuswasborn),oneof his captives begged for a burial, to which Octavian replied, “The birds will soon settle thatquestion”(Suetonius,Augustus13).Andweare toldby theRomanhistorianTacitusofamanwhocommittedsuicidetoavoidbeingexecutedbythestate,sinceanyonewhowaslegallycondemnedandexecuted“forfeitedhisestateandwasdebarredfromburial”(Annals6.29h).17

Again, it ispossible thatJesuswasanexception,butourevidence that thismighthavebeen thecasemustbejudgedtoberatherthin.Peoplewhowerecrucifiedwereusuallyleftontheircrossesasfood for scavengers, and part of the punishment for ignominious crimeswas being tossed into acommongrave,whereverysoononedecomposedbodycouldnotbedistinguishedfromanother.InthetraditionsaboutJesus,ofcourse,hisbodyhadtobedistinguishedfromallothers;otherwise, itcouldnotbedemonstratedtohavebeenraisedphysicallyfromthedead.

ThePoliciesofPontiusPilateinParticularMythirdreasonfordoubtingtheburialtraditionhastodowiththeRomanruleofJudeaatthetime.OneofthechiefregretsofanyhistorianofearlyChristianityisthatwedonothavemore—lotsmore—informationaboutPontiusPilate,thegovernorofJudeafrom26to36CE,who,amongmanyotherthings,condemnedJesustobecrucified.Whatwedoknowabouthim,however,allpointsinthesamedirection: hewas a fierce, violent,mean-spirited rulerwhodisplayed no interest at all in showingmercyandkindnesstohissubjectsandshowednorespectforJewishsensitivities.

Pilate’s governorship is lightly documented in the survivingmaterial record, aswehave somecoinsthatwereissuedduringhisreignandaninscription,discoveredinmoderntimesatCaesarea,thatmentionshim.TheNewTestamentrecordissomewhatmixed,forreasonsalreadymentioned.Astimeworeon,Christianauthors,includingthoseoftheGospels,portrayedPilateasmoreandmoresympathetic towardJesusandmoreandmoreopposedto therecalcitrantJewswhodemandJesus’sdeath.AsIhavesuggested,thisprogressiveexonerationofPilateservesclearanti-Jewishpurposes,sotheaccountsofJesus’strialinthelaterGospels—Matthew,Luke,andJohn—mustbetakenwithapoundofsalt.InanearliertraditionofLukewegetaclearerpictureofwhatthemanwaslike,aswehear, very opaquely, of “the Galileans whose blood Pilate hadmixed with their sacrifices” (Luke13:1).ThissoundsasifPilatehadJewsmurderedwhiletheywereperformingtheirreligiousduties.It’sanunsettlingpicture.

But itcoincideswellwithwhatweknowaboutPilatefromother literarysources,especiallythefirst-centuryJewishhistorianJosephus.JosephustellsoftwoepisodesthattranspiredwhilePilatewasgovernorofJudea.Thefirstoccurredwhenhetookoffice.Underveilofnight,whenPilatefirstcameinto Jerusalem, he had stationed around town the Roman standards, which had an image of theemperorembellishedon them.When theJewsofJerusalemsawthestandards in themorning, theywereoutraged:noimageswereallowedintheholycity,assuggestedinthelawofMoses,letaloneimagesofaforeignrulerwhowasworshipedelsewhereasagod.AJewishcrowdappearedtoPilateathispalaceinCaesareaanddemandedthatheremovethestandards,leadingtoastandoffthatlastedfivedays.PilatehadnointerestatallinbowingtoJewishdemands(contrastthestoriesofJesus’strialin theGospels!).On thecontrary,at theendof the fivedayshedirectedhis troops tosurround theJewishprotestors,threerowsdeep,andcutthemtoshreds.Ratherthanbackingdown,theJewstoapersonreachedout theirnecksand told thesoldiers todo theirutmost.Theywould ratherdie thancave in.Pilate realized thathecouldnotmurdersuchmasses incoldbloodand,“surprisedat theirprodigioussuperstition,”orderedthestandardsremoved(AntiquitiesoftheJews18.3.1).18

The second incident resulted in actual violence. Pilate wanted to build an aqueduct to providefreshwater to Jerusalem. That was well enough, but he financed the project by raiding the sacredtreasury of the temple. The authorities and the people were outraged and protested loudly. Pilateresponded by having his soldiersmix inwith the crowds, disguised, to attack the people, notwithswords but with clubs, at his command. They did so, and “many” of the Jews were killed in theonslaught,andmanyothersweretrampledtodeathinthetumultthatfollowed(Antiquities18.3.2).

Pilatewasnotabeneficentprefectwhokindlylistenedtotheprotestsofthepeoplehegoverned.Was Pilate the sort of ruler who would break with tradition and policy when kindly asked by amemberof theJewishcouncil toprovideadecentburialforacrucifiedvictim?Notfromwhatwecantell.AsCrossandismissivelystates:“[Pilate]wasanordinarysecond-rateRomangovernorwithno regard for Jewish religious sensitivities and with brute force as his normal solution to evenunarmedprotestingorresistingcrowds.”19EvenmoregraphicisthecomplaintofPhilo,wholived

during Pilate’s time and indicated that his administration was characterized by “his venality, hisviolence,his thefts,his assaults,his abusivebehavior,his frequent executionsofuntriedprisoners,andhisendlesssavageferocity”(EmbassytoGaius302).20

As I have said, there are some things thatwe just cannot know about the traditions relating toJesus’s resurrection.Oneof those traditions,which the resurrectionnarrative itselfpresupposes, isthat Jesus received a decent burial, either from members of the Sanhedrin or from one of theirprominentassociates,JosephofArimathea.Asahistorian,Idonotthinkwecansaydefinitivelythatthistraditionisfalse,althoughIthinkitistoomuchtosaydefinitivelythatJesuswaseatenbydogs.Ontheotherhand,wecertainlydonotknowthatthetraditionistrue,andthereare,infact,someverycompelling reasons todoubt it. Ipersonallydoubt it. If theRomans followed theirnormalpoliciesandcustoms,andifPilatewasthemanwhomalloursourcesindicatehewas,thenitishighlyunlikelythatJesuswasdecentlyburiedonthedayofhisexecutioninatombthatanyonecouldlateridentify.

WasThereanEmptyTomb?Thediscoveryoftheemptytombpresupposesthattherewasatombinthefirstplace,andthatitwasknown,andofcoursethatitwasdiscovered.Butifseriousdoubtiscastonwhetherthereeverwasatomb, then theaccountsof itsdiscoveryaresimilarly thrown intodoubt.Christianapologistsoftenarguethatthediscoveryoftheemptytombisoneofthemostsecurehistoricaldatafromthehistoryof the early Christian movement. I used to think so myself. But it simply isn’t true. Given oursuspicionsabouttheburialtradition,thereareplentyofreasonstodoubtthediscoveryofanemptytomb.

Amongotherthings,thismeansthathistorianswhodonotbelievethatJesuswasraisedfromthedead should not feel compelled to come upwith an alternative explanation forwhy the tombwasempty. Apologists typically have a field day with such explanations. Anyone who says that thedisciplesstolethebodyisattackedforthinkingthatsuchmoralmenwhofirmlybelievedwhattheydidcouldneverhavedonesuchathing.AnyonewhosaysthattheRomansmovedthebodyisshouteddownwithclaimsthattheywouldhavehadnoreasontodosoandwouldhaveproducedthebodyifithadbeentheirstoproduce.Anyonewhosaysthatthetombwasemptybecausethewomenwenttothewrong tomb is maligned for not realizing that it might occur to someone else—for example, anunbeliever—togototherighttombandrevealthebody.AnyonewhoclaimsthatJesusneverreallydiedbutsimplywentintoacomaandeventuallyawokeandleftthetombismockedforthinkingthatamanwhowastorturedtowithinaninchofhislifecouldrollawayastoneandappeartohisdisciplesastheLordoflife,wheninfacthewouldhavelookedlikedeathwarmedover.

Idon’tsubscribetoanyofthesealternativeviewsbecauseIdon’tthinkweknowwhathappenedtothebodyofJesus.Butsimplylookingatthematterfromahistoricalpointofview,anyoftheseviewsismoreplausiblethantheclaimthatGodraisedJesusphysicallyfromthedead.Aresurrectionwouldbeamiracleandassuchwoulddefyall“probability.”Otherwise,itwouldn’tbeamiracle.Tosaythataneventthatdefiesprobabilityismoreprobablethansomethingthatissimplyimprobableistoflyinthe face of anything that involves probability. Of course, it’s not likely that someone innocentlymovedthebody,butthere’snothinginherentlyimprobableaboutit.Ofcourse,it’sunlikelythatoneofJesus’s followersstole thebodyand then liedabout it,but,well,peopledowrong thingsall thetimeandlieaboutit.Evenreligiouspeople.Evenpeoplewhobecomereligiousleaders.Andnooneshouldbeputoffby theclaim,“Noonewouldbewilling todieforwhatheknewtobea lie.”Wedon’tknowwhathappenedtomostofthedisciplesintheend.Wecertainlyhavenoevidencethatthey

wereallmartyredfortheirfaith.Onthecontrary,almostcertainlymostofthemwerenot.Sothereisnoneed for talk about anyonedying for a lie. (Moreover,wehave lotsof instances inhistory forpeopledyingforlieswhentheythinkitwillserveagreatergood.Butthat’sneitherherenorthere:wedon’tknowhowmostofthedisciplesdied.)Mypointisthatonecouldthinkofdozensofplausiblescenariosforwhyatombwouldbeempty,andanyoneofthesescenariosis,strictlyspeaking,moreprobablethananactofGod.

Butallofthisisbesidethepoint,whichisthatwedon’tknowwhetherthetombwasdiscoveredemptybecausewedon’tknowwhetherthereevenwasatomb.

In this connection I should stress that the discovery of the empty tomb appears to be a latetradition. It occurs inMark for the first time, some thirty-fiveor fortyyears after Jesusdied.Ourearliestwitness,Paul,doesnotsayanythingaboutit.

WouldAnyoneInventtheWomenattheTomb?Christianapologistsoftenarguethatnoonewouldmakeupthestoryofthediscoveryoftheemptytombpreciselybecauseaccording to these stories, itwaswomenwho found the tomb.This lineofreasoningbelievesthatwomenwerewidelythoughtofasuntrustworthyand,infact,theirtestimonycouldnotbeallowedincourtsoflaw.Accordingtothisview,ifsomeonewantedtoinventthenotionofadiscoveredtomb,theywouldbesuretosaythatitwasdiscoveredbycrediblewitnesses,namely,bythemaledisciples.21

Iusedtoholdthisviewaswell,andsoIseeitsforce.ButnowthatI’vegonemoredeeplyintothematter, I see its real flaw. It suffers, inshort, fromapovertyof imagination. Itdoesnot takemuchmental effort to imaginewhowouldcomeupwitha story inwhich the female followersof Jesus,ratherthanthemalefollowers,discoveredthetomb.

The first thing to point out is that we are not talking about a Jewish court of law in whichwitnessesarebeingcalledtotestify.We’retalkingaboutoraltraditionsaboutthemanJesus.Butwhowould inventwomenaswitnesses to theempty tomb?Well, foropeners,maybewomenwould.Wehave good reasons for thinking that women were particularly well represented in early Christiancommunities.We know from the letters of Paul—frompassages such asRomans 16—thatwomenplayedcrucialleadershiprolesinthechurches:ministeringasdeacons,leadingtheservicesintheirhomes, engaging in missionary activities. Paul speaks of one woman in the Roman church as“foremost among the apostles” (Junia in Rom. 16:7). Women are also reputed to have figuredprominently in Jesus’s ministry, throughout the Gospels. This may well have been the case,historically.But in anyevent, there isnothing implausible in thinking thatwomenwho found theirnewfoundChristiancommunitiespersonallyliberatingtoldstoriesaboutJesusinlightoftheirownsituations,sothatwomenwereportrayedasplayingagreaterpartinthelifeanddeathofJesusthanthey actually did, historically. It does not take a great deal of imagination to think that femalestorytellers indicated thatwomenwere the first to believe in the resurrection, after finding Jesus’stombempty.

Moreover, thisclaim thatwomenfound theempty tombmakes thebest senseof the realitiesofhistory. Preparing bodies for burial was commonly the work of women, not men. And so whywouldn’t thestoriestellofwomenwhowenttopreparethebody?Moreover, if, inthestories, theyaretheoneswhowenttothetombtoanointthebody,naturallytheywouldbetheoneswhofoundthetombempty.

Inaddition,ourearliestsourcesarequiteclearthatthemaledisciplesfledthesceneandwerenot

presentforJesus’scrucifixion.AsIstatedearlier,thismaywellbeahistoricalfact—thatthedisciplesfearedfor theirownlivesandwentintohidingorfledtowninordertoavoidarrest.Wherewouldthey go? Presumably back home, to Galilee—which was more than one hundred miles away andwould have taken at least aweek on foot for them to reach. If themen had scattered, or returnedhome,whowasleftinthetraditiontogotothetomb?ItwouldhavebeenthewomenwhohadcomewiththeapostolicbandtoJerusalembutwhopresumablydidnotneedtofeararrest.

Moreover,onecanimaginestrictlyliteraryreasonsfor“inventing”thewomenattheemptytomb.Let’ssupposethatMarkinventedthestory.Ipersonallydon’tthinkhedid;thereisnowaytoknow,ofcourse,butmysuspicionisthatMarkinheritedthestoryfromhistradition.Butsupposehedidinventit.Therewouldbeplentyofreasons,justfromhisliteraryperspective,todoso.ThemoreyouknowaboutMark’sGospel,theeasieritistothinkofreasons.I’llgivejustone.Markmakesaspecialpointthroughout his narrative that the male disciples never understand who Jesus is. Despite all hismiracles,despiteallhisteachings,despiteeverythingtheyseehimdoandsay,theynever“getit.”AndsoattheendoftheGospel,wholearnsthatJesushasnotstayeddeadbuthasbeenraised?Thewomen.Not the male disciples. And the women never tell, so the male disciples never do come to anunderstandingofJesus.ThisisallconsistentwithMark’sviewandwithwhatheistryingtodofromaliterarystandpoint.

Again, I’mnot saying that I thinkMark invented the story.But ifwecanveryeasily imagineareasonforMarktohaveinventedit, itdoesn’t takemuchofaleaptothinkthatoneormoreofhispredecessorsmay also have had reasons for doing so. In the end,we simply cannot say that therewouldbe“noreason”forsomeonetoinventthestoryofwomendiscoveringtheemptytomb.

TheNeedforanEmptyTombInshort,therearelotsofreasonsforsomeonewantingtoinventthestorythatJesuswasburiedinaknown tomb and that it was discovered empty (whoeverwould have discovered it). And themostimportantisthatthediscoveryoftheemptytombiscentraltotheclaimthatJesuswasresurrected.Iftherewasnoemptytomb,Jesuswasnotphysicallyraised.

Iwanttostressthatadjective.Withoutanemptytomb,therewouldbenogroundforsayingthatJesuswasphysically raised. As we will seemore fully in the next chapter, some early ChristiansbelievedthatJesuswasraisedinspiritbutthathisbodydecomposed.Eventually,thisviewcametobeprominentamongdifferentgroupsofChristianGnostics.WecanseeevidenceofitspresenceeveninthecommunitiesoftheauthorswhoproducedourcanonicalGospels.ThelatertheGospel,themorethe attempt to “prove” that Jesus was raised bodily, not simply spiritually. In our earliest Gospel,Mark, Jesus is clearly raised physically because the tomb is empty—the body is gone. Later, inMatthew, it is evenmore clear that Jesus is raised physically (not just in his spirit) because Jesusappearstohisfollowersandsomeofthemtouchhim(Matt.28:9).InLukeitisevenclearerbecausewhenJesusappearstohisdisciples,heflat-outtellsthemthathehasfleshandbones,unlike“aspirit,”andhe tells them tohandlehim tosee for themselves (Luke24:39–40).Thenheeats some food infrontof themtoconvince them(24:41–43).Laterstill inJohn,Jesusnotonlycooksameal for thedisciples (John 21:9–14), but when one of them doubts, he invites him to place his finger in hiswoundstoknowforsurethatitisheandthathehasbeenraisedphysicallyfromthedead,woundsandall(20:24–29).

SomeChristiansdoubtedthattheresurrectionwasaphysicalaffair.TheGospelsthatmadeitintotheNewTestament—asopposedtoanumberthatdidnot—stressthattheresurrectionwasindeedthe

resurrection of Jesus’s physical body. These debates may have been raging in early Christiancommunities from the beginning. If so, then the empty tomb tradition not only worked to showunbelievers that Jesuswas resurrected, itworked to showbelievers that the resurrectionwasnot amatterjustofthespiritbutofthebodyaswell.

CHAPTER5

TheResurrectionofJesus

WhatWeCanKnow

IRECEIVEALOTOFe-mailsfrompeoplewhoareconcernedthatIlostmyfaith.ManyofthemtellmethatImustneverhavehadapersonalrelationshipwithJesus;obviouslymyfaithwasallintellectualand I “reasoned”myway out of it. In their view, if I weren’t a scholar and such an egghead butrealizedthatfaithinJesusisamatterofrelatingtoapersonasone’sLordandSavior,Iwouldstillbewithinthebelievingcommunity.I’mneverquitesurewhystrangersaresoconcernedaboutme.AndIwonderifthefactthatIleftthefaithissomehowseenasthreatening,atleastamongpeoplewhohaveagnawingsuspicion,whichtheyneverexplicitlyacknowledgetothemselves,thattheirownfaithmayneedtobereexamined.Whetherthat’sthecaseornot,itsimplyisnottruethatIneverhadapersonalrelationshipwithJesus.Quitethecontrary:JesusandIwereveryclose,andformanyyears.Hewasmydailycompanion,comforter,guide,andteacher,aswellasmyLordandSavior.

Atthesametime,itistruethatconservativeevangelicalChristianity—thekindIconvertedinto—isnotentirelyaboutapersonalrelationshipwiththedivine.Ithasastrongintellectualcomponentaswell.Thisisoneofthegreatironiesofmodernreligion:morethanalmostanyotherreligiousgroupontheplanet,conservativeevangelicals,andmostespeciallyfundamentalistChristians,arechildrenoftheEnlightenment.

Theseventeenth-andeighteenth-centuryintellectualmovementknownastheEnlightenmentaroseduring an age when reason, not revelation, came to be valued as the ultimate source of trueknowledge.Thenaturalscienceswereontherise,technologiesweredeveloping,andphilosophiesofthe mind were in vogue. The Enlightenment caused the demise of traditional religion for manyeducated people and others whose views were shaped by them. Among other things, theEnlightenment encouraged reasoned skepticism of every religious tradition that was based on themiraculous, the supernatural, and revelation. By stressing the power of human thought, theEnlightenmentdispelledthemythsofthedominantreligioustraditions.Itemphasizedtheimportanceofapersonseekingobjectiveverificationforwhatheorshethinksandbelieves.

When I say that conservative evangelical Christians and fundamentalists are children of theEnlightenment, I mean that more than almost anyone else, thinkers among these groups arecommitted to “objective truth”—which was precisely the commitment that led to the demise ofChristianity in the modern world in the first place, especially in Europe. And so this evangelicalcommitment is ironic.Ormaybe it’s a case of trying to fight firewith fire.But the reality is thatmodernChristianapologistsstresstheimportanceofobjectivityandchampionitmorethananyone—muchmorethanmostothereducatedpeopleinourworld.Universityintellectualsalmostneverspeakof“objectivity”anymore,unlesstheyhappentoliveonthemarginsofintellectuallife.

ButChristian apologists do, andwhen Iwas one of them, I did aswell. That iswhyChristianapologists are sokeen to “prove” that the resurrectionhappened.This is a standardweapon in the

apologeticarsenal:youcanlookatalltheevidencefortheresurrection,objectively,andconclude,onthebasisofoverwhelmingproof,thatGodreallydidraiseJesusfromthedead.Nootherexplanationcanaccountfortheobjectivelyestablishedhistoricaldata—forexample,thatJesus’stombwasemptyand thathisdisciplesclaimed toseehimafterward.Andsoapologistsproceedby taking these twodataas“facts”andshowingthatnootherexplanationisplausible(thatthedisciplesstolethebody,thattheywenttothewrongtomb,thattheywerehallucinating,andsoon).

If onewants to play the objectivity game (it is a game; there is nothingobjectively thatmakesobjectivityobjectivelytrue),itisrelativelyeasytopokeholesinthisapologeticploy—aploythatImyselfusedforyearswhenIwasaChristiantryingtoconvertpeopletobelieveintheresurrection.Foronething,asI’vealreadyargued,thereareveryseriousreasonstodoubtthatJesuswasburieddecentlyandthathistombwasdiscoveredtobeempty.Moreover,asI’veargued,anyotherscenario—nomatterhowunlikely—ismorelikelythantheoneinwhichagreatmiracleoccurred,sincethemiracledefiesallprobability(orelsewewouldn’tcallitamiracle).

Butapartfromwhetheritmakessensetowrangleoverthe“objectively”bestexplanationforthedata, there is the bigger problem—namely, that faith in a miracle is a matter of faith, not ofobjectively established knowledge. That is why some historians believe that Jesus was raised andotherequallygoodhistoriansdonotbelievehewas.Bothsetsofhistorianshavethesamehistoricaldata available to them, but it is not the historical data that make a person a believer. Faith is nothistoricalknowledge,andhistoricalknowledgeisnotfaith.

Atthesametime,thehistoriancantalkaboutcertainaspectsoftheresurrectiontraditionwithoutpresupposing either belief or unbelief. This is not a matter of requiring historians to have anti-supernaturalistbiases.Itisamatterofsuspendingone’sbiases—whethertheyaresupernaturalistoranti-supernaturalist—inorder todowhathistoriansdo: reconstruct to thebest of their abilitywhatprobablyhappenedinthepastonthebasisofthesurvivingevidence,andadmittingthattherearelotsofthingsthatwenotonlydonotknow,butalsocannotknow,historically.

In thepreviouschapter Iargued that therearesome things,givenourcurrentevidence, thatwecannotknowabouttheresurrectiontraditions(inadditiontothebigissueitself—whetherGodraisedJesusfromthedead):wecannotknowwhetherJesuswasgivenadecentburial,andwecannotknow,therefore,whetherhistombwasdiscoveredempty.Butwhatcanweknow?Wecanknowthreeveryimportant things:(1)someofJesus’sfollowersbelievedthathehadbeenraisedfromthedead;(2)theybelievedthisbecausesomeofthemhadvisionsofhimafterhiscrucifixion;and(3)thisbeliefled them to reevaluatewho Jesuswas, so that the Jewish apocalyptic preacher from rural Galileecametobeconsidered,insomesense,God.

TheBeliefoftheDisciplesTHERECANBENO doubt, historically, that someof Jesus’s followers came tobelievehewas raisedfromthedead—nodoubtwhatsoever.ThisishowChristianitystarted.IfnoonehadthoughtJesushadbeenraised,hewouldhavebeenlostinthemistsofJewishantiquityandwouldbeknowntodayonlyasanotherfailedJewishprophet.ButJesus’sfollowers—oratleastsomeofthem—cametobelievethatGodhaddoneagreatmiracleandrestoredJesustolife.Thiswasnotamereresuscitation,akindofnear-deathexperience.ForJesus’sdisciples,JesuswasraisedintoanimmortalbodyandexaltedtoheavenwherehecurrentlylivesandreignswithGodAlmighty.

Isay“some”ofhisfollowersbecauseitisnotaltogethercertainthatallofthedisciplescameto

believe this, for reasons I explain below.Our records are simply not good enough to allowus toknow exactly which among Jesus’s closest followers came to accept this great miracle. Someobviouslydid,butouraccountswerewrittenmanyyearsafter thefact,andwehearalmostnothingabout“theTwelve.”

Theothermatterofuncertainty iswhenbelief inJesus’s resurrectionandexaltationbegan.Thetradition,ofcourse,statesthatitbeganonthethirddayafterhedied.ButasIarguedintheanalysisof1 Corinthians 15:3–5, the idea that Jesus rose on the “third day” was originally a theologicalconstruct, not a historical piece of information.Moreover, if it is true that the disciples fled fromJerusalemtoGalileewhenJesuswasarrested,andthatitwastherethatsomeofthem“saw”him,theycouldnothaveseenhimonthefirstSundaymorningafterhisdeath.IftheyfledonFriday,theywouldnot have been able to travel on Saturday, the Sabbath; and since it was about 120 miles fromJerusalemtoCapernaum,theirformerhomebase,itwouldhavetakenaweekatleastforthemtogetthereonfoot.1Maybesomeofthem,oroneofthem,hadavisionofJesusinGalileesoonafterhewascrucified—possiblythatfollowingweek?Theweekafterthat?Thenextmonth?Wesimplydon’thavesourcesofinformationthatmakethiskindofjudgmentpossible.2

Itisstriking,andfrequentlyoverlookedbycasualobserversoftheearlyChristiantradition,thateventhoughitwasauniversalbeliefamongthefirstChristiansthatJesushadbeenraisedfromthedead,therewasnotauniformityofbeliefconcerningwhat,exactly,“raisedfromthedead”meant.Inparticular, early Christians had long and heated debates about the nature of the resurrection—specifically,thenatureoftheresurrectedbody.HereIexplorethreeoptionsforwhatthatresurrectedbodyofJesusactuallywas,asevidencedinwritingsfromtheearlychurch.

TheRaisingofaSpiritualBodyIstartwithourearliestrecordedsource,thewritingsofPaul,andonceagainwithhis“resurrectionchapter” (1Cor.15),sonamedbecause it isdevoted to thequestionofJesus’s resurrectionand thefutureresurrectionofbelievers.HerePaulstressesthatJesusrosefromthedeadinaspiritualbody.BothtermsareimportantforunderstandingPaul’sviewoftheresurrectionofJesus:Jesuswasraisedinthebody;butitwasabodythatwasspiritual.

Manyreadersof1Corinthiansundervalueandmisinterpretthefirstpoint.ButPaulisemphatic:Jesuswasbodily raised from thedead.Paul states thisviewvigorously in1Corinthians15,and insome sense the entire chapter iswritten tomake the point—precisely because Paul’s opponents inCorinthhadadifferentview.In theiropposingview,Jesuswasraised in thespirit,not in thebody,suchthatChristianswhoenjoytheresurrectionwithhimintheirownlivesarealsospirituallyraised—not in their bodies but in their inner beings. These opponents believed that they were alreadyexperiencing the full benefits of salvation in the present. Paul mocks this view in his letter bysarcasticallyreflectingtheirownviewsbacktothem:“Alreadyyouhaveallyouwant!Alreadyyouhavebecomerich!Quiteapartfromusyouhavebecomekings!”(1Cor.4:8).Thatheisnotstatingthisasfact,butsarcastically,isclearfromthecontext:inthenextbreathhetellsthemthathewishesitweretrue.Butalas,itisnot.Thiscurrentevilageisanageofweaknessandpowerlessness.Itisonlyintheagetocome,whenChristreturnsfromheaven,thathisfollowerswillenjoythefullbenefitsofsalvation when they are raised from these poor, lowly, weak, inferior, mortal bodies to be givenamazing,spiritual,immortalbodiessuchasJesushimselfhadathisresurrection.

And that is thepointof1Corinthians15.The fact—Paul takes it asa fact—that the resurrectedbodiesofbelieverswillbeliketheresurrectedbodyofJesusshowsthattheresurrectionhasnotyet

takenplace.Itisabodily(notpurelyspiritual)event,andsinceitisabodilyevent,itobviouslyhasnothappenedyetbecausewearestilllivinginourpatheticmortalbodies.

ButthebodyJesushadwhenhewasraisedwasnotsimplyhisresuscitatedcorpsebroughtbacktolife.Itwasanastoundinglyimmortalbody,a“spiritual”body.Abody,yes.Amaterialbody,yes.Abody intimately connected to the body that died andwas buried, yes. But a transformed body thatcouldnotexperiencepain,misery,ordeath.

Paulreportsthatsomeofhisopponentsmockhisviewsthatthereistobeafutureresurrectionofbodies:“Butsomeonewillask,‘Howarethedeadraised?Withwhatkindofbodydotheycome?’”Hisreplyisforceful:“Fool!Whatyousowdoesnotcometolifeunlessitdies”(1Cor.15:35–36).Hegoesontosaythatitislikeaseed.Itgoesintothegroundasabareseed,butitgrowsintoaliveplant.Thebody is like that. Itdiesapaltry,bare,dead thingand is raisedgloriously.For“therearebothheavenlybodiesandearthlybodies,butthegloryoftheheavenlyisonething,andthatoftheearthlyis another” (15:40).Thenhe explains that it is thisway“with the resurrectionof thedead.What issown isperishable,what is raised is imperishable. It is sown indishonor, it is raised inglory. It issown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body”(15:42–44).

Andsothebodyofthebelieverthatistoberaisedisstillabody—anditisintimatelyconnectedwith thepresentbody—but it isaglorious, immortal, spiritualbody, thepresentbody transformed.AndPaulknowsthisbecausethatisthekindofbodythatJesushadwhenhehimselfwasraised.

Somemodern readershave troubleunderstandinghow therecanbesucha thingasa“spiritualbody”thatisstillanactualbody.Theproblemisthattodaywetendtothinkof“spirit”and“body”astwoopposite things,with the spirit being invisible andnonmaterial and thebodybeingvisible andmaterial.Forus,spirit isintangibleandbodyismadeof“stuff.”Mostancientpeople,however,didnotseespiritandbodythisway,whichiswhyitispossibleforPaultospeakofaspiritualbody.Itwaswidelybelievedinantiquitythatthespiritwehavewithinuswasalsomadeof“stuff.”Itwasmaterial.Butitwasveryhighlyrefinedmaterialthatcouldnotbeseenwiththeeyes.(Kindoflikewhatpeoplethinkwhentheyimaginethey’veseena“ghost”—there’ssomethingthere,madeofstuff,sinceitcanbeseen,eventhoughit’spurespirit.)3WhenPaulspeaksofaspiritualbody,then,hemeansabodynotmadeofthisheavy,clunkystuffthatnowmakesupourbodies,butofthehighlyrefinedspiritualstuffthatissuperiorineverywayandisnotsubjecttomortality.That’swhatthefuturebodieswillbelike,becausethat’swhatJesus’sresurrectedbodywaslike.Hisbodydidindeedcomeoutofthegrave.Butwhenitdid,itwasatransformedbody,madeofspirit,andraisedimmortal.

ModernreadersarenottheonlyoneswhofindPaul’sviewsconfusingorwhoreadPaultomeansomethingthathedidn’tsay.WeknowthatotherChristiansstressedeitheroneortheotheraspectofhisspiritualbodytoanextreme.SomemaintainedthatJesuswasnotraisedinthebodyatallbutonlyinthespirit,andothersinsistedthathisraisedbodywassocloselyconnectedtohiscorpsethatitboreallthemarksofitsmortalitystilluponit.

TheRaisingoftheSpiritSomeancientChristians—takingalineverysimilartothatfoundamongPaul’sopponentsinCorinth—maintainedthatJesuswasraisedinthespirit,notinthebody;thathisbodydiedandrottedinthegrave,asbodiesdo;butthathisspiritlivedonandascendedtoheaven.ThisviewbecameprominentamongvariousgroupsofGnosticChristians.

There is no need forme to go into a lengthy discussion of earlyChristianGnosticism in this

context;therearenumerousexcellentstudies.4Formypurposeshereitisenoughtosaythatavarietyof groups after the New Testament period—all of whom claimed, of course, to represent the“original” views of Jesus and his disciples—maintained that the material world we inhabit is awicked, fallen place and that it stands at odds with the greater, purely spiritual realm to whichultimatelywebelong.Thewaytoescapeourentrapmentinthisworldofmatteristoacquiresecret“knowledge”(=gnosis)fromaboveofwhowereallyare,howwecametobehere,andhowwecanreturn to our heavenly, spiritual home. In this view, Jesus is the one who came down from theheavenlyrealmtoprovideuswiththissecretknowledge.ThesegroupsarecalledGnosticbecauseoftheiremphasisongnosis/knowledge.

IwilldiscussthisviewofChristmorefullyinChapter7.AtthisstageitisenoughtostressthatformanyoftheseGnostics, thefigurewethinkofasJesusChristwasnotasingleperson,butwasactuallytwopersons—adivinebeingfromabovewhohadcometemporarilytoinhabitthematerialbodyof themanJesus. In thisview, thematerialbody,belonging to thematerialworld, and to theinferiorGodwhocreatedit,wastranscendedatJesus’sdeathandresurrection,suchthatthebodywaskilledbutthedivinespirit,whichwasdistinctfromit,wasnottouched.Thedivinespiritreturnedtoitsheavenlyhome,while thebodywas left tocorrupthereonearth. In thisview, thephysicalbodywasnottransformedintoaspiritualbody,asinPaul;itwasabandonedtothegrave.Thespiritlivedonpastthecrucifixion—somuchsothatitdidnotactuallyneedtobe“raised.”Itsimplyescapedthefleshatthecrucifixion.

You can find this view in a book called theCopticApocalypse ofPeter,whichwas discoveredalongwithacacheofotherGnosticwritingsin1945neartheEgyptiantownofNagHammadi.Thistext gives a firsthand account of the crucifixion of Jesus as observed by Peter himself. What isstriking—and very strange indeed—is thatwhile Peter is actually talking to Jesus, he sees anotherJesusbeingcrucified.SothereareapparentlytwoJesuseshere,atthesametime.Andmorethanthat,Peter sees yet a third figure hovering above the cross and laughing. This also is Jesus. In hiscompletely understandable confusion, Peter asks Jesus (the one he is talkingwith)what it is he isseeing.TheSaviortellsPeterthattheyarecrucifyingnothim,butonly“hisphysicalpart.”It is thelaughingJesusabovethecrosswhois“thelivingJesus.”Peteristhentold:

He whom they crucified is the firstborn, and the home of demons, and the clay vessel in which they dwell, belonging toElohim,andbelongingtothecrossthatisunderthelaw.ButhewhostandsnearhimisthelivingSavior,theprimalpartinhimwhomtheyseized.Andhehasbeenreleased.Hestandsjoyfullylookingatthosewhopersecutedhim.. . .Thereforehelaughsat their lackofperception. . . . Indeed, therefore, thesufferingonemustremain,sincethebodyis thesubstitute.Butthatwhichwasreleasedwasmyincorporealbody.(Apoc.Pet.82)5

And so,what is killed ismerely the physical shell of Jesus,which belongs to theGod of thisworld(Elohim—theHebrewtermforGodintheOldTestament),ratherthanthetrueGod.TherealJesusistheincorporealspirit thatinhabitedthatbodyforatimebutthenwasreleased.This“livingJesus”islaughingbecausehisenemiesthinktheycankillhim,butinfacttheycan’ttouchhim.ThedivineSpiritofJesusisraised,accordingtothisview,notJesus’sbody.6

TheRaisingoftheMortalBodyWe don’t know how early such full-blown Gnostic views came to expression in the Christianmovement;theywerecertainlyinplacebythemiddleofthesecondcentury,andpossiblyearlier.ButthereweretendenciestowardsuchviewsalreadyintheNewTestamentperiod.Ifmyreconstruction

of the events in Corinth stated above are correct, then already in the 50s some believers in JesuswouldhavebeenopentotheviewthatJesus’sspirit,nothisphysicalbody,wasraisedfromthedead.Furtherevidence thatsomeChristiansheld thisviewcanbe found in the fact thatsomeof the laterGospeltraditionsgotosomelengthsinordertocounterit.

In Luke’s Gospel, for example, written possibly around 80–85 CE, when Jesus is raised thediscipleshave troublebelieving that it is reallyhim, in thebody—evenwhen theyseehim.This isexplicitlystatedinLuke24:36–37:“Whiletheyweresayingthesethings,Jesushimselfstoodintheirmidstandsaidtothem,‘Peacebewithyou.’Theywerestartledandafraid,andthoughtthattheywereseeingaspirit”(sometimestranslated“ghost”).Jesusrebukesthemandtellsthemtofeelhisbodysotheycanseeitisreal:“Lookatmyhandsandmyfeet,toseeitisI.Handlemeandsee—foraspiritdoesnothavefleshandbonesasyouseethatIhave”(24:39).Theystillhavetroublebelievingit,andsoheasksthemforsomethingtoeat.Theygivehimapieceofbroiledfish,andheeatsitbeforetheireyes.

The point of this story is that it really is Jesus, the same Jesus who had died, and he still isthoroughly a body, with flesh, bones, mouth, and, presumably, digestive system. Why such anemphasis on the bodily nature of the resurrected Jesus?Almost certainly because otherChristiansweredenying that itwas thebody thatwas raised. If therehadbeenadebatebetweenPaul (from1Corinthians)andGnostics(fromtheCopticApocalypseofPeter)aboutwhetherJesuswasraised inthebody,LukewouldlandfirmlyinthePaulinecamp.

Butwith apossibledifference.WhenPaul speaksof Jesus’s spiritual body, he is emphatic in1Corinthiansthatthatbodyistransformedintoanimmortalbeing.That,forPaul,isnecessary,becausethe flesh-and-blood body is not of the right “stuff” to enter the kingdom of God. As he statesunequivocally in that context: “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does theperishableinherittheimperishable”(1Cor.15:50).Themortal,perishablebodywillbetransformedintosomethingelse—animmortal,imperishable,spiritualbody.Onlythenwillitinheriteternallife.Andsothatisthekindofbody,forPaul,thatJesusalsohadathisresurrection.

But for Luke it appears that Jesus’s resurrected body was simply his corpse that had beenreanimated.Itistruethathedoesnotsaythatthebodyisstill“fleshandblood”(tousePaul’stermforwhatcannotenterthekingdom).Butheexplicitlydoessayitis“fleshandbones”(Luke24:39).Andunlike a spirit, it can eat a meal of broiled fish. It looks as if Luke is emphasizing that Jesus’sresurrectionwaspreciselyinthebodytocounterthosewhowantedtoarguethatitwasinthespirit.Indoingso,hemayhavealteredPaul’sviewsbyemphasizingevenmoretheveryrealfleshlycharacterofJesus’sbody,notastransformed,butasinpurecontinuitywiththebodythatdied.

LateronefindsasimilaremphasisinJohn,inthesceneof“doubtingThomas.”AccordingtoJohn20:24–28,Thomaswasnotwith theotherdiscipleswhen Jesus first appeared to them.Hedoesnotbelievethat theyhaveseentherisenLordandtells them,somewhatoveremphatically, thathewon’tbelieve it until Jesus appears to him and he can feel the wounds in his hands and side. And sureenough,JesusshowsupandtellsThomastodojustthat.Thomasinstantlybelieves.

Hereagain,Jesusisintheverybodythatwascrucified,woundsandall.Thus,bothLukeandJohnwanttoemphasizetherealityofJesus’sresurrectedbodyand,correspondingly,itsabsolutecontinuitywith the crucifiedbody, so that it is not obviously “transformed” into something else, as itwas inPaul.Onecouldarguethatitisnolongeranormalbody,becauseevenintheseGospelsJesusseemsto be able to showup through locked doors, and so some kind of transformation appears to haveoccurred. But it needs to be remembered that even during Jesus’s life his body allegedly had

superhumanabilities—itwasabletowalkonwater,forexample,andtobecome“transfigured”inthepresenceofhisdisciples.AndsothestressofLukeandJohnappearstobethatitreallywasthesamebody,raisedfromthedead.

This was the view that ultimately became the dominant one throughout Christianity in laterperiods,innosmallmeasurebecause,aswewillseeinChapter8,someChristiansdeniedthatJesuseverhadabodyatall.Astresson thephysicalityof Jesuswasmeant toputanysuchview to rest.Jesus had a real body during his life and even after his resurrection. Paul’s stress that it was adifferentkindofbody—onemadeofspiritinsteadoffleshandblood—cametobedeemphasizedwiththepassingoftime.

ItishardtoknowwhattheveryearliestChristians,beforePaul,thoughtaboutJesus’sbodyaftertheresurrection—whethertheyhadaviewmorelikethatfoundinPaul,ourearliestwitness,ormoreliketheonefoundLukeandJohn,whowerewritinglater.WhatiscertainisthattheearliestfollowersofJesusbelievedthatJesushadcomebacktolife,inthebody,andthatthiswasabodythathadrealbodilycharacteristics:itcouldbeseenandtouched,andithadavoicethatcouldbeheard.Whydidtheycometothinkthis,attheverybeginningoftheChristiantradition?WhatmadethembelievethatJesushadbeenbodilyraisedfromthedead?Somethingdid.AndIthinkweknowwhatitwas.SomeofJesus’sfollowershadvisionsofhimafterhehadbeencrucified.

TheVisionsofJesusITISINDISPUTABLETHATsomeofthefollowersofJesuscametothinkthathehadbeenraisedfromthedead,andsomethinghadtohavehappenedtomakethemthinkso.Ourearliestrecordsareconsistentonthispoint,andIthinktheyprovideuswithhistoricallyreliableinformationinonekeyrespect:thedisciples’beliefintheresurrectionwasbasedonvisionaryexperiences.

TheImportanceofVisionstotheResurrectionFaithI should stress that it was visions, and nothing else, that led the first disciples to believe in theresurrection.Frequentlyitisstatedthatacombinationofthingsledtothisfaith:thediscoveryoftheemptytombandtheappearancesofJesus.Myviewisthatanemptytombhadnothingtodowithit.Thisisnotonlybecausethereportsofanemptytombarehighlydoubtful,asIhavetriedtoshow,butevenmorebecause an empty tombwouldnot produce faith, as Iwill try todemonstrate, and evenmoreimportantbecausetheearliestrecordsindicatethatthetombdidnotproducefaith.

Ibeginwithourearly records.Theoldest tradition thatwehaveof the resurrection faith is thepre-Paulinecreedin1Corinthians15:3–5,whichweexaminedinChapter4.ThiscreedsaysnothingaboutanemptytombandindicatesthatthereasonthedisciplescametobelieveintheresurrectionwasthatJesusappearedtothem.ThesamethingistrueofPaulhimself:hebelievedbecauseofavision,notbecausehesawanemptytomb(Gal.1:15–16;1Cor.15:8).

SeveraloftheGospelaccounts,whichwerewrittenlater,presentthesameview.OurfirstGospelisMark;itrecordsthe“fact”thatthetombwasempty,butstrikingly,nooneissaidtocometobelievethatJesuswasraisedbecauseofit.Evenmorestriking,inLuke’saccountthereportthatthetombwasdiscoveredtobeemptywasdismissedas“anidletale”andisexplicitlysaidnottohaveledanyonetobelieve(24:11).OnlywhenJesusappearstothedisciplesdotheycometofaith(24:13–53).ThesameviewisadvancedintheGospelofJohn.MaryMagdalenediscoverstheemptytombandisconfused,

butshedoesnotbelieve.SheinsteadthinkssomeonehasmovedJesus’sbodytoadifferentlocation(20:1–13).NotuntilJesusappearstoherdoesshecomestobelieve(20:14–18).

Thesestoriesshowwhatshouldhavecomeasa logicalsurmiseevenwithout them:ifsomeonewasburiedinatombandlaterthebodywasnotthere,thisfactalonewouldnotmakeanyonesuspectthatGodhadraisedthepersonfromthedead.Supposeyouplaceacorpseinarock-hewntomb.Laterthebodyismissing.Whatisyourimmediatethought?Itisdefinitelynot“resurrection.”Instead,itis“graverobbers!”Or,“someonehasmovedthebody.”Or,“hey,Imusthavecometothewrongtomb.”Orsomethingelse.Youdonotthink,“Ohmy!ThispersonhasbeenexaltedtotherighthandofGod!”

IwanttostressthispointincontradistinctiontotheviewsetforthbyDaleAllisoninabookthatisotherwiseafinediscussionoftheresurrectionofJesus.7Butononepoint(well,severalotherstoo)Idisagreewithhim.AllisonwantstomaintainthatifthedisciplesofJesushadvisionsofhimafterhisdeath—bothAllisonandIagreethattheydid—thiswouldnotleadthemtothinkthatJesuswasbodilyraisedfromthedeadunlesstheycouldexaminetheemptytombtoseethatitwasso.Onthesurfacethisviewseemsreasonableenough,buttheproblemisthatitoverlooksexactlywhothesefollowersofJesuswereandwhattheybelievedbeforetheeventsleadinguptoJesus’sdeathanditsaftermath.

Jesus, aswehave seen (andAllison agreeswith this),was a Jewish apocalypticistwho, amongother things,agreedwithother Jewishapocalypticists thatat theendof thiscurrentwickedage thedead would be judged and resurrected. In Jesus’s view, the dead would be raised bodily to facejudgment, either to be rewarded if they had sidedwithGod or to be punished if they had alignedthemselveswiththeforcesofevil.Thisafterlifeinthekingdomwouldentailabodilyresurrection.

And who were the disciples? They were followers of Jesus who, of course, accepted hisapocalypticmessageand themselvesadopted suchapocalypticviews.8 If anapocalyptic Jewof thiskind were to come to believe that the resurrection of the dead had begun—for example, with theraisingofGod’sspeciallyfavoredone,hismessiah—whatwouldthatresurrectioninvolve?Itwouldnaturallyandautomaticallyinvolvepreciselyabodilyresurrection.That’swhat“resurrection”meantto these people. It did not mean the ongoing life of the spirit without the body. It meant thereanimationandglorificationofthebody.IfthedisciplescametobelievethatJesuswasraisedfromthedead,theywouldhaveonthespotunderstoodthatthismeanthisbodywasnolongerdeadbuthadbeenbroughtback to life.Theywouldn’tneedanempty tomb toprove it.Ofcourse, for them, thetombwasempty.Itgoeswithoutsayingandwithoutseeing.Jesusisaliveagain,whichmeanshisbodyhasbeenraised.

The empty tomb narratives came later—after the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5 and after thewritingsofPaul. Inotherwords, theywerenotpartof theearly tradition.Andevenwhen theydidcometobetoldanddiscussed,Christiansrealizedthattheemptytombitselfwouldnotgeneratefaith—asMark,Luke,andJohninformus.Somethingelsedid.SomeofJesus’sfollowershadvisionsofhimaliveafterhehadbeencrucified.

Terminology:WhatVisionsAreBeforeweproceed,itisimportanttobeclearabouttheterminologyIamusing.WhenIsaythatsomeofthedisciplesalmostcertainlyhad“visions”ofJesusafterhisdeath,whatdoImean?

I am not using the term vision in any particularly technical sense. By “vision” I simply meansomethingthatis“seen,”whetheritisreallythereornot.Inotherwords,Iamnottakingastandonthe question of whether there was some kind of external reality behind what the disciples saw.Scholarswhostudyvisionsspeakofthosethatareveridical—meaningthatapersonseessomething

thatisreallythere—andofthosethatarenonveridical—meaningthatwhatapersonseesisnotreallythere. Sometimes you see a shadowy figure in your bedroom at night because someone is reallythere;othertimesyou’re“justseeingthings.”

When it comes to thevisionsof Jesus that his disciples experienced,Christianbelieverswouldtypicallysaythat therewasindeedanexternalrealitybehindthem.That is,Jesusreallyappearedtothese people. Anyone with that viewwould probably call such veridical visions “appearances” ofJesus.Non-Christianswouldsaythatthevisionswerenonveridical,thattherewasnothingthereandthatthevisionswere,possibly,psychologicallyorneurophysiologicallyinduced.Suchpeoplewouldprobably call these visions “hallucinations.” The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of MentalDisordersoftheAmericanPsychiatricAssociationdefineshallucinationas“asensoryperceptionthathasthecompellingsenseofrealityofatrueperceptionbutthatoccurswithoutexternalstimulationoftherelevantsensoryorgan.”9Itshouldbenotedthat“sensoryperception”hereisunderstoodtorefertonotonly“seeing,”butalsotoanyoftheothersenses:hearing,feeling,smelling,andeventasting.

IamnotgoingtotakeastandonthisissueofwhetherJesusreallyappearedtopeopleorwhethertheirvisionswerehallucinations,somycasedoesnotriseorfalldependingonwhetherthevisionswereveridicalornot.Asanagnostic,IpersonallydonotbelieveJesuswasraisedfromthedeadandsoIdonotbelievehe“appeared”toanyone.ButwhatIhavetosayabout thedisciples’visionsarethingsIcouldhavesaidjustaseasilybackinthedayswhenIwasafirmbeliever.

Manydiscussionsoftheresurrectionarefocusedonjustthisquestionofwhetherthevisionswereveridical or not.MostNewTestament scholars are themselvesChristian and they naturally tend totake theChristian view of thematter—that the visionswere bona fide appearances of Jesus to hisfollowers.You can find such views forcefully stated in any number of publications, including therecent,andverylarge,booksbyChristianapologistMikeLiconaandbyrenownedNewTestamentscholarN.T.Wright.10

ButsomeprominentNewTestamentscholarsarguevociferouslyontheothersideofthequestionaswell.Forexample,theGermanscholarandskepticGerdLüdemannarguesthatthevisionsofJesusexperiencedbyPeter,andthenlaterbyPaul,werepsychologicallyinduced.Inhisview,whenJesusdiedhisbodydecomposedlikeanyotherbody;thus,Lüdemannsays,sinceChristianityisrootedinthephysical resurrectionbut Jesusactuallywasnotphysically raised,“Christian faith isasdeadasJesus.”11

AndthenthereisthelateBritishNewTestamentscholarandintellectualgadflyMichaelGoulder,whoarguedthattherearenumerousoccasionswhenpeopleonceprovidedsupernaturalexplanationsfor things that now we can explain through science. But once a natural explanation exists for aphenomenon, we no longer need a supernatural one. For example, Goulder points out that in theMiddleAges theeffectsofwhatwenowwouldcallhysteria—paralysis, tremors, anesthesia, etc.—wereattributed todemonpossession.Nodoctor todaywould thinkshewasgrapplingwithdemonswhentreatinghysteria.Nowwehaveanaturalexplanationforwhatoncerequiredasupernaturalone.Anotherofhisexamplescomesfrom1588,whentheEnglishfiredupontheSpanishArmadaandthecannon balls at first did not penetrate the distant ships. An English captain declared that this wasbecause of “our sins.” But as the Spanish ships got within closer range, the balls did begin topenetrate.Anaturalexplanation(relativeproximity) thussuperseded thereligiousone(“becauseofoursins”),makingthereligiousonenolongerrequired.InGoulder ’sview,thesamecanbesaidofthe visions of the disciples. If we can come up with natural explanations—for example,psychologicallyinducedhallucinations—thereisnoneedforsupernaturalones.12

Ifindthesedebatesbetweenbelieversandunbelieversfascinating,butformypurposestheyarebeside the point. Whether one believes the visions of Jesus’s followers were veridical ornonveridical,theresultsIthinkwillbethesame.ThevisionsledfollowersofJesustobelievehehadbeen raised from the dead. And so I incline toward the view of Dale Allison, who maintains thefollowing:

Thesituationissuch,Ibelieve,thatnothingwouldprohibitaconscientioushistorianfromsteeringclearofboththeologicaland anti-theological assumptions, or of both paranormal and anti-paranormal assumptions, and simply adopting aphenomenological approach to the data, which do not in and of themselves demand from historians any particularinterpretation. Would it be an historical sin to content oneself with observing that the disciples’ experiences, whetherhallucinatoryornot,weregenuineexperiencesthattheyatleasttooktooriginateoutsidetheirsubjectivity?13

Idonotthinkitwouldbeahistoricalsinatalltoleavethematterofexternalstimuli—werethevisionsveridicalornot—undecided,sothatbelieversandunbelieverscanreachcommongroundonthesignificanceoftheseexperiences.Thatismyultimateconcern.

WhoHadtheVisions?Exploringthe“DoubtTradition”InconsideringthesignificanceofthevisionsofJesus,akeyquestionimmediatelycomestotheforethatinmyjudgmenthasnotbeengivenitsfullduebymostscholarsinvestigatingtheissue.Whydowe have such a strong and pervasive tradition that some of the disciples doubted the resurrection,eventhoughJesusappearedtothem?IfJesuscametothem,alive,afterhisdeath,andtalkedwiththem—whatwastheretodoubt?

The reason thisquestion is sopressing is that, aswewill see,modern researchonvisionshasshownthatvisionsarealmostalwaysbelievedbythepeoplewhoexperiencethem.Whenpeoplehaveavision—ofalostlovedone,forexample—theyreallyanddeeplybelievethepersonhasbeenthere.So why were the visions of Jesus not always believed? Or rather, why were they so consistentlydoubted?

Jesusdoesnotappear toanyoneinMark’sGospel,buthedoes inMatthew,Luke,John,andthebookofActs.Mostreadershavenevernoticedthis,butineveryoneoftheseaccountswehaveratherdirectstatementsthatthedisciplesdoubtedthatJesuswasraised.

InMatthew28:17wearetoldthatJesusappearedtotheeleven,but“somedoubted.”WhywouldtheydoubtifJesuswasrightthere,infrontofthem?WehavealreadyseenthatinLuke24,whenthewomenreportthatJesushasbeenraised,thedisciplesconsideritan“idletale”anddonotbelieveit(24:10–11).Then,evenwhenJesusappearstothem,hehasto“prove”thatheisnotaspiritbyhavingthemhandlehim.Andeventhatisnotenough:heneedstoeatapieceofbroiledfishinorderfinallytoconvincethem(24:37–43).SotooinJohn’sGospel,atfirstPeterandthebeloveddiscipledonotbelieveMaryMagdalenethatthetombisempty;theyhavetoseeforthemselves(John20:1–10).Butwhat is more germane, the text clearly implies that even when the disciples see Jesus, they don’tbelieveitishe:thatiswhyhehastoshowthemhishandsandthewoundinhisside,toconvincethem(20:20).SotoowithdoubtingThomas—heseesJesus,buthisdoubtsareovercomeonlywhenheistoldtoinspectthewoundsphysically(20:24–28).

AndthencomesoneofthemostpuzzlingversesinalloftheNewTestament.InActs1:3wearetoldthatafterhisresurrectionJesusspentfortydayswiththedisciples—fortydays!—showingthemthathewasaliveby“manyproofs.”Manyproofs?Howmanyproofswereneededexactly?And ittookfortydaystoconvincethem?

CloselyrelatedtothesedoubttraditionsarethescenesintheGospelsinwhichJesusappearstohisdisciplesaftertheresurrectionandtheydon’trecognizewhoheis.ThisistheleitmotifofthefamousstoryofthetwodisciplesontheroadtoEmmausinLuke24:13–31.Thesetwodonotrealizetheyaretalkingtothepersontheyhavejustbeentalkingabout,andtheydonotrecognizeJesusuntilhebreaksbreadwiththem.Similarly,inJohn20:14–16,MaryMagdaleneisthefirsttoseeJesusraised,butshedoesnotimmediatelyrecognizehim.Shethinkssheistalkingwiththegardener.SotooinJohn21:4–8,thedisciplesarefishingaftertheresurrectionandJesusappearstothemontheshoreandspeakswiththem.Buttheydon’trealizewhoitisuntilthebeloveddiscipledoes.

What is one to make of these stories? Some readers have suggested that if the disciples hadmerely had “visions,” itwouldmake sense that therewas considerable doubt aboutwhat they hadseen.Thisisaninterestingpoint,butasIhavealreadysaid,andaswewillseemorefullylater,peoplewhohavevisionstendnottodoubtwhattheyhaveseen.Themostimpressivethingaboutpeoplewhoreportvisionaryexperiencesinnumerousdifferentcontextsisthattheyconsistentlyinsist,sometimeswithsomevehemence,thatthevisionswerereal—notmadeupintheirheads.Thisappliesacrosstheboard—topeoplewhohaveseen lovedonesafter theyhavedied (andsometimes talk to them,andhold them), to people who see great religious figures such as the Blessed Virgin Mary (whosesightingsarereportedanddocumentedtoanastonishingextent),topeoplewhoclaimthattheyhavebeenabductedbyUFOs.14Peoplewhohavevisionsreallybelievethem.Butanumberofthedisciplesarereportednottohavebelievedthem,untiltheyweregiven“proof.”

Mytentativesuggestionisthatthreeorfourpeople—thoughpossiblymore—hadvisionsofJesussometimeafterhedied.OneofthesewasalmostcertainlyPeter,sincereportsabouthisseeingJesusarefoundeverywhereinoursources,includingourearliestrecordofPaulin1Corinthians15:5.AnditneedstoberememberedthatPaulactuallyknewPeter.Paultooexplicitlystatesthathehadavisionof Jesus, and I thinkwecan takehimathisword thathebelieves Jesusappeared tohim. It is alsosignificant thatMaryMagdalene enjoys suchprominence in all theGospel resurrectionnarratives,even though she is virtually absent everywhere else in theGospels. She ismentioned in only onepassageintheentireNewTestamentinconnectionwithJesusduringhispublicministry(Luke8:1–3),and yet she is always the first to announce that Jesus has been raised.Why is this?One plausibleexplanationisthatshetoohadavisionofJesusafterhedied.

These three people—Peter, Paul, andMary, as it turns out—must have told others about theirvisions. Possibly others had them as well—for example, James, Jesus’s brother—but I think it isdifficulttosay.MostoftheircloseassociatesbelievedthemandcametothinkthatJesuswasraisedfromthedead.Butpossiblysomeoftheoriginaldisciplesdidnotbelieveit.Thiswouldexplainwhythere is such a strongdoubt tradition in theGospels, andwhy there is such an emphasis (inLuke,John,andespeciallyActs)onthefactthatJesushadto“prove”thathewasraised,evenwhenhewasallegedlystandinginfrontofthedisciples.Ifhistoricallyonlyafewpeoplehadthevisions,andnoteveryonebelieved them, thiswouldexplainmany things.Marydidn’tdoubtwhatshehadseen,nordidPeterorPaul.Butothersdid.Still,asthestoriesofJesus’s“appearances”weretoldandretold,ofcourse,theywereembellished,magnified,andevenmadeup;sosoon,probablywithinafewyears,itwassaidthatallofthediscipleshadseenJesus,alongwithotherpeople.

VisionsfromaBroaderPerspectiveIhavesaidthatitisnotimportantformypurposeswhetherthevisionsofJesuswereveridicalornot.Butinordertounderstandthesevisionsmoredeeply,itisnecessarytoseewhatscholarswhohave

studied such things have said about visionary experiences.Most serious research on visions is onthosethatarenonveridical,foranobviousreason.Peoplewhoseesomethingthatisrightbeforetheireyesaresimplyseeingwhatisthere.Butwhyandhowdopeopleseethingsthatarenotrightbeforetheir eyes? To appreciatemore fully the early reports of visions by Jesus’s disciples, we need toexplorewhatotherpeoplehavesaidaboutthevisionstheyhavehad.

One authoritative account is given by the psychologist Richard Bentall in an article titled“HallucinatoryExperiences.”15Bentallsays that thefirst realattempt toseewhether itwaspossibleforpeopletohavenonveridicalvisionswithoutsufferingfromphysicalormentalillnesscameattheendofthenineteenthcentury.AmannamedH.A.Sidgewickinterviewed7,717menand7,599womenandfoundthat7.8percentofthemenand12percentofthewomenreportedhavinghadatleastonevividhallucinatoryexperience.Themostcommonvisionwasofalivingpersonwhowasnotpresentat the time.Anumberof thevisions involvedreligiousorsupernaturalcontent.Themostcommonvisionswerereportedbypeoplewhoweretwentytotwenty-nineyearsold.

The first trulymodern survey—usingmodernmethodsof analysis accepted today in the socialsciences—wasconductedbyP.McKellarin1968.Oneoutoffour“normal”peoplereportedhavinghadatleastonehallucinatoryexperience.FifteenyearslaterastudybyT.B.PoseyandM.E.Loschconsideredauditoryhallucinations—inwhichapersonhearsavoicewithoutseeinganyone.Among375collegestudents,fully39percentreportedhavinghadtheexperience.

ThemostcomprehensivesurveyofthegeneralpopulationwasconductedbyA.Y.Tienin1991.Thisstudyinvolved18,572people.Remarkably,13percentof themclaimedtohaveexperiencedatleastonevividhallucination—astatisticveryclosetowhatSidgewickhadfound,usinglessscientificmethods, nearly a century earlier. It is worth noting that the risk of schizophrenia in the generalpopulationisusuallyestimatedasbeing1percent.Thismeansthattherearemorethantentimesasmanypeoplewhohaveexperiencedhallucinationsaswhosufferfromschizophrenia.

Howdoesoneexplaintheselargenumbers?Bentallarguesthattheabilitytodistinguishbetweenself-generatedevents(thatis,imaginarysensationsoriginatinginthemind)andexternallygeneratedones(thatis,thoseinducedbycausesexteriortothemind)isarealskillthathumansacquire,andlikeallskills,it“islikelytofailundercertaincircumstances.”16Thisskilliscalledsourcemonitoring—sinceitistheskillofmonitoringwherethesourceofasensationcomesfrom,eitherinsideoroutsidethemind. Bentall argues that sourcemonitoring judgments are affected by the culture in which aperson grows up. If a person’s culture subscribes to the existence of ghosts or the reality of deadpeopleappearing,thechancethatwhatone“sees”willbeassumedtobeaghostoradeadpersonisobviously heightened. Moreover, and this is a key point, stress and emotional arousal can haveseriouseffectsonaperson’ssourcemonitoringskills.Someonewhoisunderconsiderablestress,orexperiencingdeepgrief,trauma,orpersonalanguish,ismorelikelytoexperienceafailureofsourcemonitoring.

Thismaybewhy twoof themost frequently reported formsofvisions involve thecomfortingpresenceofadeceasedlovedoneorofarespectedreligiousfigure.Ofcoursepeoplehaveallsortsof other visions—someof them inducedbymental imbalanceor physiological stimulants, such ashallucinatorydrugs,as sowonderfullydocumented inOliverSacks’sbookHallucinations.But forpeoplewhoarenotsufferingfrommentaldiseaseandarenotingestingLSD,visionsappeartooccurwith particular frequency among those who are experiencing bereavement or religious awe andexpectation.

BereavementVisionsAsignificantamountofresearchhasbeendoneonvisionscausedbybereavement.Oneofthemoststrikingfeaturesofthisresearchisthatthosewhoexperiencesuchvisionsalmostalwaysassume,andwholeheartedlybelieve,thattheyareveridical.Thepersonwhohasdiedreallyhascomebacktovisit.Outsiderstendtoseethesevisionsashallucinations.AswiththevisionsofthehistoricalJesus,Iseenoneedtotakeasideonthedebateonwhetherthedeadreallydovisitthosetheyhaveleftbehind.

Certain typical aspects of these visions are of some relevance for understanding the disciples’visionsof Jesus—whowas, after all, abelovedonewhohaddied suddenlyand tragicallyandwasdeeplymournedandgrieved.AsDaleAllisonsummarizestheresearchonbereavementvisions,theseusuallyentailafeelingthatthelostlovedonecontinuestobepresent,eveninthesameroom,withtheonemourning.17Suchvisionsaremorecommonlyexperiencedwhenapersonhasasenseofguiltoversomeaspectofhisorher relationshipwith theonewhohasdied (recall: thediscipleshadallbetrayed,denied,orfledfromJesusduringhishourofneed).Oftentheyareaccompaniedbyangeratthe circumstances or the peoplewho caused the lovedone’s death (another obvious parallel to thedisciplesandJesus).Strikingly,afterthelovedoneshavedied,thesurvivorsidealizethem,smoothingover the difficult aspects of their personalities or remembering only their good sides. And notinfrequently, those suffering bereavement seek to form communitywith otherswho remember thelovedonesandtellstoriesabout them.Allof thesefeaturesrelatecloselywithwhatwehavein thecaseofJesus,thebelovedteacherandmasterwhometanuntimelydeath.

OneparticularlyintriguingsetofmodernfindingshastodowithwhatBillandJudyGuggenheimhavecalled“After-DeathCommunications.”18IshouldstressthattheGuggenheimsarenottrainedinpsychologyor inother fields relevant to thescientificstudyofvisions; therefore, theiranalysisoftheir data is not useful for scholarly purposes. But the data themselves are significant, and bygathering it, theGuggenheimshaveperformedaserviceofrealvalue: theyhave interviewedmorethanthirty-threehundredpeoplewhohaveclaimedtheywerecontactedbyadeadlovedone,andtheyhave presented numerous accounts of such contacts in their publications. Let me stress: these arepiecesofanecdotalevidence.But theyarefascinatinganecdotes indeedandarevaluableforgivinginsightintowhatpeopleexperiencewhentheyhavevisionsofdeadlovedones.

Theseinterviewsshowthatsuchvisionshappenbothtopeoplewhoareasleepandtopeoplewhoare awake.Moreover, evenwhen people have the vision in a dream, they almost always take it tomeannotthatthey“weresimplydreaming,”butthatthepersontheysawreallyhassurviveddeathandis still alive and communicating with them. These experiences often happen immediately after aperson’sdeath—but sometimes theyhappenayear later, threeyears later, tenyears later,ormore.They almost always bring a peaceful assurance that all iswellwith the personwho has died. Thepersonwhoismournedisnotalwaysafamilymember—heorshecanalsobeafriendoranotherlovedone.

It appears that peoplewho are physically or emotionally exhausted aremore likely to have anAfter-DeathCommunication. In theGuggenheims’ extensive experience the communications occurmorefrequentlywhensomeonehasdiedunexpectedlyortragically.Thekeyelementseemstobethata person is deeply missed. That person then communicates with the one who is grieving. It isespeciallystrikingthatmanyofthepeopleinterviewedbytheGuggenheimsdidnotknowthatsuchathing as After-Death Communication existed or had ever occurred—before experiencing itthemselves.Thatwaspartofwhatmadetheseexperiencessoconvincingtothepeoplewhohadthem:theyweresudden,unexpected,andvivid.

ItisnottheGuggenheims’missiontocomparethesemodernexperiencestothosethedisciplesofJesushad.Butthesimilaritiescannotbeoverlookedbysomeonewhoisinterestedinthebeginningsof Christianity. Themuch beloved teacher of the disciples—the one for whom they had given upeverything and towhom theyhaddevoted their lives—was suddenly andbrutally taken away fromthem,publiclyhumiliated,tortured,andcrucified.Accordingtoourearlyrecords,thediscipleshadplentyofreasonsforfeelingguiltandshameoverhowtheyhadfailedJesusbothduringhislifeandathisgreatesttimeofneed.Soonthereafter—andforsometimetocome?—someofthembelievedtheyhadencounteredhimafterhisdeath.Theyweredeeplycomfortedbyhispresenceand felthisforgiveness.Theyhadnotexpectedtohavetheseexperiences,whichhadcomeuponthemsuddenlyandwithavividnessthatmadethembelievethattheirbelovedteacherwasstillalive.

But unlike themodern people interviewed by theGuggenheims, these followers of JesuswereancientJewishapocalypticists.Manymodernpeoplewhobelievealovedonelivesonmaythinktheirsoulshavegonetoheaven,sincethat’sacommonmodernversionoflifeafterdeath.AsapocalypticJews, the disciples believed that the afterlife entailed a resurrection of the dead. When theyexperiencedJesusafterhehaddied,theynaturallyunderstoodhisnewlifeinlightoftheirowndeeplyheldconvictions.Hehadbeenbodilyraisedfromthedead.

VisionsofEsteemedReligiousFiguresOf additional relevance to our reflections are visions of revered religious figures from the past,which are among the best documented kind of visionary experience. Here I briefly explore the“appearances”oftheBlessedVirginMaryandvisionsinthemodernworldofJesushimself.

TheBlessedVirginMaryRené Laurentin is a modern-day Catholic theologian and expert on modern apparitions who haswrittenmanybooksonthetopic.19HehasadegreeinphilosophyfromtheSorbonneinParisandtwodoctorates,oneintheologyandoneinliterature.AndhedeeplyandsincerelybelievesthatMary—themotherofJesuswhodiedtwothousandyearsago—hasappearedtopeopleinthemodernworldandthatshecontinuestodoso.HereIgivejusttwoexamplesfromhiswritings.

InBetania,Venezuela,awomannamedMariaEsperanzaMedranodeBianchinireceivedpeculiarspiritualpowers:shecouldtellthefuture,levitate,andhealthesick.TheVirginMaryappearedtoherseveral times, starting inMarch1976.Themost strikingoccurrence, onMarch25, 1984, involvedlotsofotherpeople.AftertheCatholicmassthatmorning,anumberofpeoplewenttoenjoysometimeoutdoorsnearthelocalwaterfall,andtheVirginMaryappearedaboveit.Thisbeganaseriesofvisions.Mary came andwent, often visible for fiveminutes or so, the last time for half an hour.Amongtheobserversweredoctors,psychologists,psychiatrists,engineers,andlawyers.Peopleovertheweekstocomestartedpicnickingthere.At times,uptoa thousandpeopleobservedMarythere,bathedinlightandaccompaniedbythesmellofroses.Thiscontinueduntil1988.Later,aJesuitpriest,Monsignor Pio Bello Ricardo, who was a professor of psychology at the Central University ofCaracas,interviewed490peoplewhoclaimedtohaveseenMarythere.TheyconvincedhimthatMaryhadreallybeenatthewaterfall.

AsecondexamplecomesfromCairo,Egypt,from1986,ataCopticchurch.Maryhadappearedthere a numberof timesbetween1983 and1986.Once, she appearedon the roof, and fourCopticbishopsauthenticated thevision.Theydid indeedseeher.Atother times, shewasseenbyMuslims(whowerenotChristians, obviously). In some instances, shewas actuallyphotographed.Laurentin

saysthathehasaphotographofasimilarapparitionfromanotherCopticsuburbfrom1968.Mypoint is not thatMary really is appearing in these times and places, but that people deeply

believe she is.Andnot just peoplewhomwemight “write off” as beingparticularly gullible—butpeoplewhomwemight think should “know better.”Anecdotal collections ofMary visions can befound in numerous books, such as Janice Connell’sMeetings with Mary: Visions of the BlessedMother (1995). Connell provides fourteen chapters detailing visions of Mary, from a believer ’sperspective,fromthenineteenthandtwentiethcenturies,asthesearedocumentedfromplacessuchasLourdes,France;Fatima,Portugal;Garabandal,Spain;andMedjugorje,Bosnia-Herzegovina.Thereis,forexample,the“cosmicmiracleofthesun”thattookplaceatFatimaonOctober13,1917.Wearetoldthesunwasseentospinwildlyandtotumbledowntoearthbeforestoppingandreturningtoitsnormal position, radiating indescribably beautiful colors. Themiraclewas seen and attested to bymorethanfiftythousandpeople.

Do such miracles happen? Believers say yes, unbelievers say no. But it is striking and worthnotingthattypicallybelieversinonereligioustraditionofteninsistonthe“evidence”forthemiraclesthatsupport theirviewsandcompletelydiscount the“evidence”formiraclesattested insomeotherreligioustradition,eventhough,attheendoftheday,it isthesamekindofevidence(forexample,eyewitness testimony) and may be of even greater abundance. Protestant apologists interested in“proving”thatJesuswasraisedfromthedeadrarelyshowanyinterestinapplyingtheirfinelyhonedhistoricaltalentstotheexaltedBlessedVirginMary.

Jesus’sAppearancesintheModernWorldJesusalsoappearstopeopletoday,andsomeofthesesightingsaredocumentedbyPhillipH.Wiebein his bookVisions of Jesus:Direct Encounters from theNewTestament to Today (1997).20Wiebepresents twenty-eight case studies, which he examines from psychological, neuropsychological,mentalist, andotherperspectives. Included is avisionof Jesus experiencedbyHughMontefiore, awell-known New Testament scholar at Cambridge University and later bishop of the Church ofEngland,whoconvertedtoChristianityfromJudaismatagesixteenbecausehehadavisioninwhichJesusappearedtohimandtoldhimto“followme”—wordsthat,atthetime,theyoungMontefioredidnotknowweredrawnfromtheNewTestament.

Of particular interest are instances inwhich Jesus is said to have appeared to entire groups ofpeople,ratherthanjusttoanindividual.NocaseismoreintriguingthanthelastoneWieberecounts,that ofKenneth Logie, a preacher in a PentecostalHolinessChurch inOakland,California, in the1950s. Two appearances are worth detailing. The first occurred in April 1954 when Logie waspreachingataneveningservice.Inthemiddleofhissermon,around9:15P.M.,thedoortothechurchopened,andJesuswalkedinandcamedowntheaislesmilingtopeopleontherightandtheleft.Hethen walked through (not around) the pulpit and placed his hand on Logie’s shoulder. Logie,understandably, collapsed. Jesus spoke to him in an unknown foreign tongue, and Logie revivedenough to reply tohiminEnglish,havingunderstoodwhathesaid.Wiebe tellsus that fiftypeoplewitnessedtheevent.

Strange thingshappen.Butwhathappened fiveyears laterwas even stranger.And twohundredpeoplesawandconfirmedtheyhadseen it.Andremarkably, itwascapturedonfilm.Thereason itwasfilmed,Logielatersaid,wasthatverystrangethingshadbeenhappeninginthechurchandtheywantedtodocumentthem.Wiebehimselfsawthefilmin1965.Awomanfromthecongregationwasgiving her testimonywhen suddenly she disappeared andwas replaced by amale figurewhowas

obviouslyJesus.Hewaswearingsandalsandaglisteningwhite robe,andhehadnailmarks inhishand. His hands were dripping with oil. After several minutes, during which he apparently saidnothing,hedisappearedandthewomanreappeared.

Unfortunately,bythetimeWiebehaddecidedtowritehisbook,sometwenty-sixyearsafterfirstseeingthefilmoftheevent,thefilmhaddisappeared.Logieclaimedithadbeenstolen.Still,Wiebewas able to find, and interview, five peoplewho had been there and agreed that they had seen theevent.Moreover, therestillweresurvivingphotographsof theotheroddoccurrences in thechurchback in1959: imagesofhands, hearts, and crosseshad started to appearon the churchwalls,withliquidlikeoilflowingfromthemandafragrancebeingemittedfromthem.Thewallswerecheckedbyaskeptic,whohadnonaturalexplanationfortheseappearances(nohiddenwindowsorthelike).Wiebehasseenthephotographs.

Skepticsmaypointout that the timebetweenwhentheseeventsallegedlyhappened in the1950sand Wiebe’s written account of them amounts to several decades, so one may be justified insuspectingtheaccuracyofthewitnesses’memories.ButWiebepointsoutthataboutthesameamountoftimefellbetweenthelifeofJesusandtheaccountsoftheearliestGospels.

TheDisciples’VisionsofJesusLetusreturntothevisionsthatJesus’sdisciplesapparentlyhad.Christianapologistssometimesclaimthat the most sensible historical explanation for these visions is that Jesus really appeared to thedisciples.Letmebracketforasecondthequestionofwhetherahistoriancanconcludethatamiracleprobably happened in the past (the historian definitely cannot, as I’ve argued; but I’ll bracket thequestion for amoment). Often one hears from these apologists that the visionsmust be veridicalbecause“masshallucinations”cannothappen—soifPaulsays“fivehundredbrothers”allsawJesusatonetime,itdefiesbeliefthatthiscouldhavebeenimaginedbyallfivehundredatonce.Thereisacertain force to this argument, but it does need to be pointed out that Paul is the only one whomentionsthisevent,andifitreallyhappened—orevenifitwaswidelybelievedtohavehappened—itishardtoexplainwhyitnevermadeitswayintotheGospels,especiallythoselaterGospelssuchasLuke and John thatwere so intent on “proving” that Jesuswas physically raised from the dead.21Apart from that, most people at the end of the day believe that mass hallucinations are not onlypossible,butthattheyreallycanhappen.Preciselythoseconservativeevangelicalscholarswhoclaimthat mass hallucinations don’t happen are the ones who deny that the Blessed Virgin Mary hasappeared to hundreds or thousands of people at once, even though we have modern, verifiedeyewitnesstestimonythatshehas.

Sometimes suchapologists claim that ahallucinationcouldnotpossiblyproduce the result thatJesus’sappearancesdid:causingacompletemoralandpersonaltransformationofthedisciples.Thisview,too,cannotbesustainedaftermorethanamoment’sthought.Inorderforavisiontohaveitseffect—torelieveguilt, toremoveshame, toprovideasenseofcomfort, tomakeapersonwant toliveagain,or anyother effect—itdoesnothave tobeveridical. It has tobebelieved.Someof thediscipleswholeheartedlybelievedthattheyhadseenJesusafterhehaddied.Theyconcludedthathehadbeen raised from thedead.That changed everything, aswewill see.Whether Jesuswas reallythereornothasnobearingonthefactthatthedisciplesbelievedhewas.

Finally,inamorescholarlyvein,somepeoplehavearguedthatavisionofJesuswouldnotleadthedisciplestobelievethathehadbeenraisedfromthedeadbecauseJudaismatthetimedidnothaveasensethatanindividualwouldberesurrectedbeforethe“generalresurrection”attheendoftime,

whenallpeoplewouldbebroughtbacktolife.Thistooisaninterestingargument,butitalsoisnotconvincingtosomeonewhoknowssomethingaboutancientbeliefsoflifeandtheafterlife.TheNewTestament itselfreports thatHerodAntipasbelievedthatJesuswasactuallyJohntheBaptist“raisedfromthedead”;therefore,somesuchbeliefwasnotimplausible.Moreover,abeliefwasattestedinnon-ChristianJewishcirclesthattheemperorNerowouldreturnfromthedeadtowreakmorehavocon the earth, as reported in a group of Jewish texts known as the SibyllineOracles.22 It was notunthinkablethatsomeonewouldcomebackfromthedead(as,forexample,Lazarusdid).ButanyonewhowasanapocalypticJewlikeJesus’sclosestfollowerPeter,orJesus’sownbrotherJames,orhislaterapostlePaul,whothoughtthatJesushadcomebacktolife,wouldnaturallyinterpretitinlightofhis particular apocalypticworldview—aworldview that informed everything that he thought aboutGod,humans,theworld,thefuture,andtheafterlife.Inthatview,apersonwhowasaliveafterhavingdiedwouldhavebeenbodily raised fromthedead,byGodhimself, soas toenter into thecomingkingdom.That’showthedisciplesinterpretedJesus’sresurrection.Moreover,thatiswhyJesuswasunderstoodtobethe“firstfruits”ofthosewhohaddied(e.g.,1Cor.15:20):becausehewasthefirstto be raised, and all otherswere to be raised soon aswell. In that sense his resurrectionwas thebeginningofthegeneralresurrection.

Attheendoftheday,beliefinJesus’sresurrection“works”whetherthevisionswereveridicalornot.Iftheywereveridical,itwasbecauseJesuswasraisedfromthedead.23Iftheywerenotveridical,theyareeasilyexplainedonothergrounds.Thediscipleswerebereavedanddeeplygrievingfortheirdearest lovedone,whohadexperienceda sudden,unexpected, andparticularlyviolentdeath.Theymayhavefeltguiltabouthowtheyhadbehavedtowardhim,especiallyinthetensehoursimmediatelybeforehisdeath.Itisnotatallunheardofforsuchpeopletohavean“encounter”withthelostlovedoneafterward.Infact,suchpeoplearemoreinclinedtohavejustsuchanencounter.Myviewisthathistorianscan’t“prove”iteitherway.

TheOutcomeofFaithEVEN THOUGH HISTORIANS CANNOT prove or disprove the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection, it iscertain that someof the followersof Jesus came tobelieve in his resurrection.This is the turningpointinChristology.Christology,as Ihavesaid, isa termthat literallymeans theunderstandingofChrist. My point in this chapter—indeed, in this book—is that belief in the resurrection changedeverythingChristologically.BeforethefollowersofJesusbelievedinhisresurrection,theythoughthe was a great teacher, an apocalyptic preacher, and, probably, the one chosen to be king in thecomingkingdomofGod.Sincetheyfollowedhimwholeheartedly,theymusthavesubscribedtohisteachingwholeheartedly. Like him, they thought the age theywere living inwas controlled by theforcesofevil,butthatGodwouldsoonintervenetomakerightallthatwaswrong.Intheverynearfuture,Godwasgoingtosendacosmicjudgeovertheearth,theSonofMan,todestroythewickedpowers thatweremaking life somiserable in thisworld and to set up a goodkingdom, a utopianplacewheregoodwouldprevailandGodwouldrulethroughhismessiah.Thediscipleswouldsitonthronesasrulersinthecomingkingdom,andJesuswouldbeseatedonthegreatestthroneofall,asthemessiahofGod.

Buthewaspurelyhuman.Hewasagreatteacher,yes.Acharismaticpreacher,yes.AndeventhesonofDavidwhowouldruleinthefuturekingdom,yes.Buthewasaman.Bornlikeotherhumans,raised like other humans, in nature no different from others, only wiser, more spiritual, more

insightful,morerighteous,moregodly.ButnotGod—certainlynotGod,inanyoftheancientsensesoftheterm.

Thatallchangedwiththebeliefintheresurrection.WhenthedisciplescametobelievethatGodhadraisedJesusfromthedead,theydidnotthinkitwasaresuscitationsuchasyoucanfindelsewhereamong the Jewish andChristian traditions. In theHebrewBible,Elijahwas said to havebrought ayoungmanbackfromthedead(1Kgs.17:17–24).Butthatyoungmanwentontolivehislifehereonearthand thenhedied.Later therewerestoriesaboutJesus raising thedaughterofJairus fromthedead(Mark5:21–43).Shedidnotascendtoheavenandbecomeimmortal:shegrewup,grewold,anddied.JesusallegedlyraisedhisfriendLazarusfromthedead(John11:1–44).Hetooeventuallydied.Thesewereallinstancesofresuscitation,whenthebodycamebackfromthedeadinordertoliveandthendieagain.Theyweretheancientequivalentsofnear-deathexperiences.

ButthatisnotwhatthedisciplesbelievedaboutJesus.Thereasonisclear.TheybelievedJesushadcomebackfromthedead—buthewasnotstilllivingamongthemasoneofthem.Hewasnowheretobe found. He did not resume his teaching activities in the hills of Galilee. He did not return toCapernaumtocontinuehisproclamationofthecomingSonofMan.HedidnotcomebacktoengageinyetmoreheatedcontroversieswiththePharisees.Jesusinaverypalpableandobvioussensewasnolongerhere.Buthehadcomebackfromthedead.Sowherewashe?

This is the key. The disciples, knowing both that Jesus was raised and that he was no longeramongthem,concludedthathehadbeenexaltedtoheaven.WhenJesuscamebacktolife,itwasnotmerelythathisbodyhadbeenreanimated.GodhadtakenJesusuptohimselfintheheavenlyrealm,tobe with him. God had exalted him to a position of virtually unheard-of status and authority. TheexpectationthatJesuswouldbethefuturekinginthekingdom,ahumanmessiah,wasjustaforetasteofwhatwas really in store forhim.Godhaddone something farbeyondwhat anyonecouldhavethoughtor imagined.Godhad takenhim into theheavenly sphereandbestoweddivine favoruponhimsuchashadnever,inthedisciples’opinion,beenbestowedonahumanbefore.Jesusnolongerbelongedtothisearthlyrealm.HewasnowwithGodinheaven.

ThisiswhythedisciplestoldthestoriesofJesus’spost-resurrectionappearancesthewaytheydid.Jesusdidnotresumehisearthlybody.Hehadaheavenlybody.Whenheappearedtohisdisciples,intheearliest traditions,heappeared fromheaven.Andhisheavenlybodycoulddo thingsnoearthlybodycoulddo.InMatthew’sGospel,whenthewomenarrivedatthetombonthethirdday,thestonewas not yet rolled away. It rolled away as they arrived. But the tombwas empty. That meant thatJesus’sbodyhadbeentakenthroughsolidrock.Later,whenheappearedtothedisciples,hewalkedthroughlockeddoors.Jesushadaheavenlybody,notjustanearthlybody.

Let me return to a comment I made earlier: that even in the Gospels Jesus appears to have aheavenlybodyduringhisearthly life—onethatcanwalkonwater, forexample,orbe transfiguredintoaradiatingglowinthepresenceofsomeofhisdisciples.Butitisimportanttoremember:theseGospelswerewritten by believers in Jesus decades laterwho already “knew” that Jesus had beenexaltedtoheaven.AsstorytellerstoldthestoriesofJesus’searthlycareer,yearafteryearanddecadeafterdecade, theydidnotseparatewhoJesuswasafterhisdeath—theonewhohadbeenexalted toheaven—fromwhohewasduringhislife.AndsotheirbeliefintheexaltedJesusaffectedthewaysthey told their stories about him. They recountedmiracles that he had done as a divine human—healingthesick,castingoutdemons,walkingonwater,multiplyingtheloaves,raisingthedead.WhycouldJesusdothesethings?Theywereattributedtohimbyhislaterfollowerswhoalready“knew”thathewasn’tameremortalbecauseGodhadexaltedhimtoheaven.Asaheavenlybeing,Jesuswas

insomesensedivine.Thestorytellerstoldtheirtalesfullybelievingthathewasuniquelydivine,withthatbeliefaffectinghowtheytoldtheirstories.

Beforethesestorytellersbegantheirworkofrecountingthewordsanddeedsofthisdivineman,theearliestbelievers—assoonas theyhadvisionsofJesusandcametobelievehehadbeenraisedfrom thedead—thought hehadbeen exalted to heaven.His appearances to themwere appearancesfromheaven.Thatwaswherehelivednowandwouldliveforalleternity,withGodAlmighty.

In some later traditions this belief came to be modified in an important way. Today, mostChristians think that Jesus died; that he was raised from the dead on the third day; that he thenappeared,while still onearth, tohisdisciples; and thatonlyafter thathewentup toheaven, inhis“ascension.”Asitturnsout,theascensionismentionedinonlyonebookoftheNewTestament,thebookofActs.24TheauthorofActs—let’scallhimLuke—presentsaninnovationhereinhisstoryofJesus.Ifyouwillrecall,LukeisespeciallycommittedtoshowingthatJesus’sresurrectedbodywasareal,honest-to-goodnessbody.Ithadfleshandbones.Itcouldbefelt.Itcouldeatbroiledfish.Lukestresses thispointbecauseotherChristianswere saying that Jesus, at least inhis resurrected form,wasaspirit,notabody.ForLuke,hewasabody.Andtomakethatpointevenmoreemphatic,Luketells the story of the ascension. Possibly Luke himself came up with this story. As we have seen,according to thebookofActs, Jesusspent fortydayswithhisdisciples, showing them“withmanyproofs”thathereallywasaliveagain(1:3).Andthen,after thefortydays,hephysicallywentuptoheaven—and thediscipleswatchedhimgo.Thisaccount ismeant toemphasizeyet further the realbodilynatureofJesusafterhisresurrection.

ButitstandsintensionwiththeviewsfoundelsewhereintheGospels,whichsaynothingaboutaphysicalascensionofareal,bony,fish-eatingbody.TheearliesttraditionwasdifferentfromwhatisinActs.Inthatearliertradition,Jesus’sresurrectionwasnotsimplyareanimationofabodythatwasthen to be taken up into heaven. The resurrection itselfwas an exaltation into the heavenly realm.“God raised Jesus from the dead”was taken tomean thatGodhad exalted Jesus from this earthlyrealmof lifeanddeath into theheavenly sphere. In thisolderunderstanding, Jesusappeared tohisdisciples by coming downbriefly fromheaven.This certainly is the understanding of our earliestwitness,Paul,whospeaksabouthisownvisionofJesusinexactlythesametermsasthevisionsoftheothers two or three years before him—Cephas, James, the Twelve, and so on. Therewas nothingcategoricallydifferentaboutanyoftheseappearances.Theywereallappearancesfromheaven.

If thefirstbelievers inJesus’sresurrectionunderstoodit tomeanthatJesushadbeentakenintoheaven,howexactlydidthatleadthemtochangewhattheythoughtaboutJesus?HowdiditmarkthebeginningofChristology?HowdiditcausehisfollowerstobelievethatJesuswasGod?

Thisisthesubjectofthenextchapter,butfornow,here’sabriefforeshadowing.ThefollowersofJesus,duringhislife,believedthathewouldbethekingofthefuturekingdom,themessiah.Nowthattheybelievedhehadbeenexaltedtotheheavenlyrealm,theyrealizedtheyhadbeenright.Hewasthefutureking;buthewouldcome fromheaven to reign. In some traditionsof theJewishking in theHebrewBible,aswehaveseen,theking—eventheearthlysonofDavid—wasthoughttobeinsomesenseGod.Jesusnowhadbeenexaltedtoheavenandistheheavenlymessiahtocometoearth.Inanevenmore real sense, hewasGod.NotGodAlmighty, of course, but hewas a heavenly being, asuperhuman,adivinekingwhowouldrulethenations.

BeforeJesus’sdeaththedisciplesbelievedhewouldsitonthefuturethrone.IfGodhastakenhimupintoheaven,heisalreadysittingonathrone.Infact,heisattherighthandofGod.Onearththedisciplesconsideredhimtheirmasterand“lord.”NowhereallyistheirLord.Thedisciplesrecalled

thescripturethatsaid,“TheLORDsaystomyLord,‘SitatmyrighthanduntilImakeyourenemiesyour footstool’” (Ps. 110:1). God had taken Jesus, exalted him to his right hand in a position ofauthorityandpower,madehim theLordofall,whowould ruleoverall things.Asonewho ruledfrombesideGod’sthrone,JesuswasinthatsensealsoGod.

ThekinginIsraelwasalsoknownasthe“SonofGod.”Jesusclearlywasthat—bothbyvirtueofhisbeingthefuturekingandbythefact thatGodhadelevatedhimto theheavenlyrealm.GodhadshoweredhisspecialfavoruponJesusandmadehiminauniquesensetheSonofGod—farabovethestatusenjoyedbythedescendantsofDavid.GodhadadoptedJesustobehisSon,hisuniqueSon.Justas theemperorsweresonsofbothGod(since theiradopted fatherswere“God”)andgods, so tooJesus,astheSonofGod,wasinthatsenseGod.

Jesus,then,wascomingtorulefromheaven.InhisownteachinghehadproclaimedthattheSonofManwastoappearasthecosmicjudgeovertheearth.ButnowitwasobviouslyJesushimselfwhowas coming from heaven to rule. The disciples very soon—probably right away—concluded thatJesuswasthecomingSonofMan.Sowhentheytoldstoriesabouthimlater,theyhadhimspeakofhimself as theSonofMan—somuchso that itbecameoneofhis favorite titles forhimself in theGospels.Aswehaveseen, theSonofManwassometimesunderstood tobeadivinefigure. In thatsensealso,then,JesuswasGod.

Itshouldbenotedthatallfouroftheseexaltedroles—Jesusasmessiah,asLord,asSonofGod,asSonofMan—imply,inonesenseoranother,thatJesusisGod.Innosense,inthisearlyperiod,isJesusunderstoodtobeGodtheFather.HeisnottheOneAlmightyGod.HeistheonewhohasbeenelevatedtoadivinepositionandisGodinavarietyofsenses.AsIhavebeenarguingandwillargueextensively in thenext chapter,whenever someone claims that Jesus isGod, it is important to ask:Godinwhatsense?IttookalongtimeindeedforJesustobeGodinthecomplete,full,andperfectsense,thesecondmemberoftheTrinity,equalwithGodfrometernityand“ofthesameessence”astheFather.

CHAPTER6

TheBeginningofChristology

ChristasExaltedtoHeaven

WHEN I BECAME SERIOUS about my Christian faith in high school, my social life was ratherprofoundly affected. Not right away, but eventually. My first serious relationship was with a girlnamedLynn,whomIstartedtodateasasophomore,theyearbeforeIbecamebornagain.Lynnwasawonderfulhumanbeing:intelligent,attractive,funny,caring.ShewasalsoJewish.I’mnotsureIhadeverknownaJewishpersonbefore,andIdon’trecallthatourrespectivereligionshadmuch,ifany,bearingonourrelationship.IwasanaltarboyattheEpiscopalchurcheverySunday,andshewenttosynagogueonSaturday.Or at least I assume shedid; lookingback, I don’t rememberwhetherherfamilywasreligiousinanytraditionalsenseoftheword—attendingservicesorevenkeepingJewishholidays.IsupposetheywererathersecularJews.Frankly,atthetime,whenitcametoagirlfriend,Ihadotherthingsonmymindthanalternativeworshippractices.

Lynnwasoneofthreedaughterslivingwithasinglemom.Theywerelikemyfamily,somewhereinthemiddletouppermiddleclass,withmanyofthesamevaluesandoutlooksonlifeasmine.Lynnand I had terrifically good chemistry and ended up spending a lot of time together, as we gotincreasinglyserious throughout thatsophomoreyear.But thendisasterstruck.(Ihadaverylimitedunderstanding of the possibilities of disaster at the time.) Lynn’smomwas offered a better job inTopeka, Kansas, and they were going tomove there from Lawrence. Hermom and I had alwaysgottenalongextremelywell, but shewas firm: even though the townswereonlyabout twenty-fivemilesapart, thismoveshouldmarktheendofour“goingtogether”(aswecalleditbackthen).Weshouldmeetotherpeople andhavenormal social lives.And sowedid. Iwasheartbroken,but lifemustgoon.

Soonafterthat,Iwasbornagain.LynnandIstilltalkedonthephone—andevensaweachotheronoccasion.IvividlyrememberoneconversationwehadafterIhad“receivedChrist.”Iwastryingtopersuadeher that she tooshouldaskJesus intoherheart.Shewasunderstandablyconfused—innosmallpartbecauseImyselfhadnocluewhatIwastalkingabout.AfteralongtalkinwhichItriedtoexplainitallinmyamateurishway,shefinallyasked,“ButifIalreadyhaveGodinmylife,whydoIneedJesus?”Itwasastunnerofaquestionforme.Iwascompletelyflummoxed.Iwasclearlynotagoodbetforacareerintheology.

Lynn’s questionwould not have flummoxed the earliestChristians.Quite the contrary, the firstfollowers of Jesus had very clear ideas aboutwho Jesuswas andwhy hemattered. A look at thehistorical record shows that they not only talked about him all the time, they came up withincreasinglyexaltedthingstosayabouthimandmagnifiedhisimportancemoreandmorewiththepassingoftime.Eventually,theycametoclaimthathewasGodcometoearth.

ButwhatdidtheearliestChristianssayabouthimrightaftertheycametobelievethathehadbeenraisedfromthedead?InthischapterIexploretheearliestChristologies—understandingsofChrist—

oftheearliestChristians.

TheBeliefsoftheEarliestChristiansFOR THE PURPOSES OF this discussion, I am using the term Christian in its most basic sense, asreferring to anyonewho, after Jesus’s life, came tobelieve thathewas theChristofGodandwasdeterminedbothtoacceptthesalvationhebroughtandtofollowhim.Idonotthinkthat“Christian”isan appropriate term for Jesus’s followersbeforehis death; but used in theway I’ve just describedmakesgoodsenseforthosewhocametobelievethathehadbeenraisedfromthedeadandthoughtofhimasonewhowasspeciallychosenbyGodtobringaboutsalvation.

Thefirstwhocametothisbeliefwerehisownremainingdisciples—oratleastsomeofthem—and possibly others of his followers from Galilee, including Mary Magdalene and some otherwomen.Asit turnsout, it isextremelydifficult toknowwhatthesepeoplebelievedassoonastheyacceptedtheideathatJesushadbeenraisedfromthedead,innosmallmeasurebecausewehavenowritings from them, or writings of any kind, in fact, from the first two decades of the Christianmovement.

OurOldestSurvivingChristianSourcesThefirstChristianauthorwehaveistheApostlePaul,whoseearliestsurvivingwritingisprobably1Thessalonians,writtenpossiblyaround49or50CE—fullytwentyyearsafterJesushadbeencrucified.Paulstartedoutasanoutsidertotheapostolicbandandoriginallyopposedratherthansupportedtheirmovement.TwoyearsorsoafterJesus’sdeath,say32or33CE,whenPaulfirstheardofJewswhobelievedJesustobethemessiah—acrucifiedman!—herejectedtheirviewswithvehemenceandsetaboutpersecutingthem.But theninoneof thegreat turnaroundsinreligioushistory—arguablythemost significant conversion on record—Paul changed frombeing an aggressive persecutor of theChristianstobeingoneoftheirstrongestproponents.Heeventuallybecamealeadingspokesperson,missionary, and theologian for the fledgling Christian movement. He later claimed that this wasbecausehehadhadavisionofJesusalive, longafterhisdeath,andconcluded thatGodmusthaveraisedhimfromthedead.

Paul believed he was personally called by God to engage in missionary activities among thegentiles,persuadingthese“pagans”thattheirowngodsweredead,lifeless,andofnouse,butthattheGodofJesuswastheonewhohadcreatedtheworldandenteredhistoryinordertoredeemit.Onlybelief in themessiahcouldputaperson intoa rightstandingbeforeGod,because themessiahhaddiedforthesinsofothers,andGod,inordertoshowthatthisdeathdidindeedbringatonement,hadraisedhimfromthedead.Arguably,Paul’sgreatestcontributionto the theologyofhisdaywashishard-foughtviewthatthissalvationinChristappliedtoallpeople,Jewandgentilealike,onthesamegrounds:faith in thedeathandresurrectionofJesus.BeingJewishhadnothingtodowith it.Tobesure, Jewswere the “chosenpeople,” and the Jewish scriptureswere a revelation fromGod.But agentiledidnothavetobecomeaJewinordertohavesalvationthroughthedeathandresurrectionofthemessiah.ForPaul, salvationcertainlyhadcome“from theJews,”sinceJesuswas,afterall, theJewishmessiah;butoncethissalvationhadcometotheworld,itwasgoodfortheentireworld,notjustforJews.ItwasthemeansofsalvationthatGodhadplannedfrometernityforallpeople.

AsaChristianmissionaryPaultraveledfromoneurbancentertoanotherpreachingthismessage,andheestablishedchurchesinvariouspartsoftheMediterranean,especiallyinAsiaMinor(modern

Turkey),Macedonia,andAchaia(modernGreece).AfterhestartedaChristiancommunityandgotitonitsfeet,hewouldheadtoanothercityandstartacommunitythereaswell,andthenmoveonagain.Asheheardnewsfromonecommunityoranotheroftheproblemstheywerehaving,hewrotebackto them to instruct them further aboutwhat they should believe and how they should behave. Theletters of Paul that we have in the New Testament are some of these communications. As I haveindicated,1Thessalonianswasprobablythefirst.Theotherswereallwrittenoverthecourseofthenextdecade,inthe50s.OfthethirteenlettersthatareunderPaul’snameintheNewTestament,criticalscholarsarereasonablysurethatPaulactuallywrotesevenofthem—Romans,1and2Corinthians,Galatians,Philippians,1Thessalonians,andPhilemon(theotherswerewrittenbylaterfollowersofPaul in different contexts); these are called the undisputed Pauline letters, since almost no onedisputesthatPaulwastheirauthor.1TheseareourearliestsurvivingwritingsfromanearlyChristian.

ThePaulinelettersareextremelyvaluableforknowingwhatPaulthoughtandforseeingwhatwashappeningintheChristianityofhisday.ButwhatifwewanttoknownotsimplywhatwashappeninginPaul’schurchesin,say,55CE,twenty-fiveyearsafterJesus’sdeath,orhowMatthew’scommunitywasunderstandingJesusaround85CE,somefifty-fiveyearsafterJesus’sdeath?Whatifwewanttoknowwhat theveryearliestChristiansbelieved,say, intheyear31or32,ayearor twoafterJesusdied?

Thisisobviouslyabigproblem,since,asIhavesaid,wedon’thaveanywritingsfromthattime.AndtheoneNewTestamentwritingthatallegedlyrecordswhatwashappeningattheearliestperiodinChristianhistory—thebookofActs—waswrittenaround80–85CE,again,fiftyorfifty-fiveyearsafterthetimewearefornowmostinterestedin.Moreover,theauthorofActs,whomwecontinuetocall Luke, did what all historians of his day did: he told his story in light of his own beliefs,understandings,andperspectives,andtheseaffectedhowherecountedhismaterial,muchofwhichheno doubt inherited from storytellers among the Christians who had long been recounting—andthereforechangingandembellishing—thestoriesoftheearlyyearsofthefaith.

Given this state of affairswith our sources, how canwe get to the earliest forms ofChristianbelief,beforethetimeofouroldestsurvivingwritings?Asitturnsout,thereisaway.AnditinvolvespassagesofasortImentionedearlier:preliterarytraditions.

DetectingSources“Behind”OurSources:PreliteraryTraditionsThe firstPh.D. seminar I took inmygraduateprogramwascalled“CreedsandHymns in theNewTestament.” The professor was named Paul Meyer. He was an erudite and deeply learned NewTestamentscholar, respectedbyall the leadingscholarsof thedayfor theastonishingcarehe tookwhenengaginginexegesisand,asaresult,forhisunusuallypenetratinginsightsintothetextoftheNewTestament.

TheideabehindthecoursewasthatsomepassagesintheNewTestament—especiallyinsomeofthe epistles and in Acts—are remnants of much older traditions from the early decades of theChristianmovement.Forthesakeofthisclass,wecalledthesepreliterarytraditionshymnsandcreeds(recall:preliterarymeansthatthetraditionswereformulatedandtransmittedorallybeforetheywerewrittendownby theauthorswhoseworkswe still have).Scholarshad long supposed that someofthese traditionshadbeen sungduringveryearlyChristianworship services (hymns)andothersofthemwerestatementsoffaith(creeds)thathadbeenrecitedinliturgicalsettings—forexample,ataperson’sbaptismorduringaweeklyworshipservice.

The value of being able to isolate preliterary traditions is that they give us access to what

ChristianswerebelievingandhowtheywereextollingGodandChristbeforeourearliestsurvivingwritings.Someof thesepreliterary traditionscanplausiblybe located toa timewithinadecadeorlessafterJesus’sfollowersfirstcametobelievehehadbeenraisedfromthedead.

ItisnoteasytodetectplaceswherepreliterarytraditionssurviveintheNewTestamentwritings,butasarulethereareseveralindicators.Noteverycreedorhymn(orpoem)hasallofthesefeatures,buttheclearestsuchtraditionshavemostofthem.First,thesetraditionstendtobeself-containedunits—meaning that you can remove them from the literary contextwenow find them in and they stillmakesense,standingbythemselves.Thesetraditionsareoftenhighlystructuredinaliterarysense;forexample,theymayhavepoetic-likestanzasandvariouslinesthatcorrespondinmeaningtootherlines.Inotherwords,thesetraditionscanbehighlystylized.Moreover,oneoftenfindsthatthewordsandphrasesofthesetraditionsarenotfavored,orusedatall,bytheauthorwithinwhoseworkstheyare embedded (showing that he probably did not compose them). Even more striking, thesepreliterarytraditionsnotinfrequentlyexpresstheologicalviewsthatdifferinlesserorgreaterwaysfromthosefoundintherestofanauthor ’swriting.Youcanseehowthesefeaturessuggestthat thetraditiondidnotoriginateinthewritingsoftheauthor:thestyle,vocabulary,andideasaredifferentfromwhatyoufindelsewhereinhiswork.Moreover,insomecasestheunitthathasbeenidentifiedinthesewaysdoesnot fitverywell in the literarycontextwhere it isnowfound—it looks like ithasbeentransplantedthere.Often,ifyoutaketheunitoutofitscontextandthenreadthecontextwithoutit,thepieceofwritingmakessenseandflowsperfectlywell,asifnothingweremissing.

InChapter4weexaminedonepieceofpreliterarytradition:1Corinthians15:3–5.TheseversesmeetseveralofthecriteriaIhavelaidout,aswehaveseen:theyformatightlystructuredcreedintwoparts,eachpartcontainingfourlinesthatcorrespondinmeaningwithoneanother(betweenthefirstandsecondparts),and theycontaincertainkeywordsnot foundelsewhere inPaul’s letters.Paul isalmostcertainlyquotinganearliercreed.

There are other such preliterary traditions in Paul’swritings and in the book ofActs.What isstriking is that a number of them embody Christological views that are not exactly those of Paulhimself,oroftheauthorofActs.Inthejudgmentofawiderangeofbiblicalscholars,theseviewsarequiteancient.2Infact,theymayrepresenttheoldestviewsoftheveryearliestChristians,viewsfirstreached when the followers of Jesus came to believe he had been raised from the dead. Theseparticular preliterary traditions are consistent in their view: Christ is said to have been exalted toheavenathisresurrectionandtohavebeenmadetheSonofGodatthatstageofhisexistence.Inthisview,JesuswasnottheSonofGodwhowassentfromheaventoearth;hewasthehumanwhowasexaltedattheendofhisearthlylifetobecometheSonofGodandwasmade,thenandthere,intoadivinebeing.

TheExaltationofJesusWEFINDTHISVIEWofChristinwhatisarguablytheoldestfragmentofacreedinallofPaul’sletters,aswellasinseveralofthespeechesofActs.

Romans1:3–4Romans1:3–4appearstocontainapre-PaulinecreedatthebeginningofwhatisPaul’slongestandperhapsmostimportantletter.IhavesaidthatPaul’slettersare,asarule,writtentochurcheshehad

establishedinordertohelpthemdealwiththevariousproblemsthathadariseninhisabsence.Theone exception is the letter to theRomans. In this letter Paul indicates not only that hewas not thefounderofthisChristiancommunity,butthathehasneveryetevenvisitedRome.Hisplanistovisititnow.PaulwantstoengageinaChristianmissionfarthertothewest—allthewaytoSpain,whichformostpeople living in theMediterraneanworldwas the“endof theearth.”Paulwasoneambitiousfellow.HebelievedGodhadcalledhimtospreadthegospeltoalllands,andsonaturallyhehadtogoasfaraswashumanlypossible.AndthatwasSpain.

Butheneeded support forhismission, and thechurch inRomewasanobviousplace toget it.Thiswasalargechurch,locatedinthecapitalcityoftheempire.ItcouldserveasagatewaytotheWest.Wedon’tknowwhostartedthechurchorwhen.LatertraditionsaidthatitwasfoundedbythedisciplePeter(allegedlythefirstbishopthere,hencethefirst“pope”),butthisseemsunlikely:Paul’sletterprovidesuswiththefirstsurvivingevidenceforthefactthatachurchexistedinRomeatall,andinithegreetsthevariouspeopleheknowsthere.ButhenevermentionsPeter.ThisishardtoimagineifPeterwasthere—especiallyifhewastheleaderofthatchurch.

PauliswritingthelettertotheRomansinordertodrumupsupportforhismission.Thereasonheneedstowritesuchalongcommunicationtoaccomplishthisendbecomesclearinthecourseoftheletter itself.TheChristiansinRomedonotknowfully,oraccurately,whatPaul’smissionisallabout. In fact, they seem to have heard some rather unsettling things about Paul’s views. Paul iswritingthelettertosetthematterstraight.Sohispurposeistoexplainasfullyandclearlyashecanwhat it is that he preaches as his gospel.This iswhy the letter is so valuable to us today. It is notsimplyaddressingthisorthatproblemthathadariseninoneofPaul’schurches.It ismeanttobeaclearexpressionofthefundamentalelementsofPaul’sgospelmessage,inhisattempttoclearupanymisunderstandingsamongChristianswhoweresomewhatdistrustfulofhisviews.

Inanysituationlikethat,itisimportantforalengthycommunicationtogetoffontherightfoot.AndsothebeginningofPaul’sletterissignificant:

1Paul,a slaveofChrist Jesus, calledasanapostleandsetapart for thegospelofGod,2whichheannounced inadvancethroughhisprophetsintheholyscriptures,3concerninghisSon,whowasdescendedfromtheseedofDavidaccordingtotheflesh,4whowasappointedSonofGodinpoweraccordingto theSpiritofholinessbyhisresurrectionfromthedead,JesusChristourLord.

AsinallofPaul’sletters,hebeginsbyintroducinghimselfbynameandsayingsomethingaboutwhohe is: theslaveandapostleofChristwho iscommitted to thegospel.Paulmaybesaying thisbecause he had opponents who charged him with being a self-centered, self-aggrandizing, falseapostle.Butinfact,heisenslavedtoChristandiscompletelycommittedtospreadinghisgospel.Thisgospel,hetellsus,isafulfillmentofwhatwasproclaimedintheJewishscriptures.Aswillbeseenthroughtherestofthisletter,thisisakeyclaimpreciselybecausePaul’sopponentshadchargedhimwithpreachingananti-Jewishgospel.PaulinsistedthatgentilescouldbemaderightwithGodwithoutbeingJews.Butdoesn’tthatundercuttheprivilegesoftheJewsasGod’schosenpeopleanddeprivethegospelofitsJewishroots?NotforPaul.ThegospelispreciselythegoodnewsproclaimedbytheJewishprophets in the Jewish scriptures.And thenPaul indicateswhat the gospel is all about. It ishere, in vv.3–4 of this letter opening, that we have a statement of faith which scholars have longrecognizedasapreliterarycreedthatPaulisquoting.

Unlike the rest of the first chapter ofRomans, these two verses are highly structured andwell

balancedintotwothoughtunits,inwhichthethreestatementsofthefirstunitcorrespondtothethreestatements of the second—similar towhatwe sawwith the creed from1Corinthians. ImmediatelybeforethecreedPaultellsusthatitisaboutGod’sSon,andimmediatelyafterwardhesaysitisabout“JesusChristourLord.”Ifwesettheversesbetweenthesetwostatementsinpoeticlines, theylooklikethis:

A1WhowasdescendedA2fromtheseedofDavidA3accordingtotheflesh,

B1whowasappointedB2SonofGodinpowerB3accordingtotheSpiritofholinessbyhisresurrectionfromthedead.

ThefirststatementofwhatIhavelabeledunitAcorrespondstothefirststatementofunitB:Jesusdescended(fromDavid),andJesuswasappointed(SonofGod).Sotoothesecondstatementsofeachunit:seedofDavid(=thehumanmessiah),andSonofGodinpower(=exalteddivineSon).Andthethird:accordingtotheflesh,andaccordingtotheHolySpirit.ThisfinalstatementinunitBislongerthanthecorrespondingstatementinunitAbecause“theflesh”involvesboththerealminwhichJesusexistedandthemeansbywhichhecametoexistinit:heexistedinthefleshly,earthlyrealmbecausehewasbornasahuman.Allof this isconveyedby“according to the flesh.”Tomake thecontrastcomplete the author of the creed—whoever hewas—needed again to address both the contrastingrealmandthecontrastingmeansbywhichJesusenteredit:itistherealmoftheHolySpirit,anditwasenteredwhen hewas raised from the dead. ThusA3 speaks of his beingmade alive in thisworldwhere hewas themessiah, andB3 speaks of his being brought back to life in the spiritual realmwherehewasmade thepowerfulSonofGod.Theonlyphrase thatdoesnot seemneeded for thiscorrespondenceofthetwopartsis“inpower,”andscholarshavewidelyarguedthatPauladdedthesewordstothecreed.3

FromthiscreedonecanseethatJesusisnotsimplythehumanmessiah,andheisnotsimplytheSonofAlmightyGod.Heisboththings, intwophases:firstheis theDavidicmessiahpredictedinscripture,andsecondheistheexalteddivineSon.

Thatthisisapre-PaulinecreedthatPaulisquotinghasseemedcleartoscholarsforalongtime.Foronething,aswehavejustseen,itishighlystructured,withoutawordwasted,quiteunlikehownormalproseistypicallywrittenandunliketheotherstatementsPaulmakesinthecontext.Moreover,even though thepassage is very short, it contains a numberofwords and ideas that are not foundanywhereelseinPaul.NowhereelseinthesevenundisputedPaulinelettersdoesPaulusethephrase“seedofDavid”;infact,nowhereelsedoeshementionthatJesuswasadescendantofDavid(whichwas requisite, of course, for the earthlymessiah).Nowhere else does he use the phrase “Spirit ofholiness”(fortheHolySpirit).AndnowhereelsedoesheevertalkaboutJesusbecomingtheSonofGodat the resurrection.Fora short twoverses, thosearea lotof termsand ideas thatdiffer fromPaul.Thiscanbestbeexplainedifheisquotinganearliertradition.

Moreover, this earlier tradition has a different view ofChrist than the one that Paul explicateselsewhereinhissurvivingwritings.Here,unlikeinPaul’swritings,Jesus’searthlymessiahshipasadescendantofKingDavidisstressed.Evenmorestriking—asIwillemphasizeinamoment—theideathatJesuswasmadetheSonofGodpreciselyathisresurrectionisalsostressed.Itisinterestingaswelltonote—forpurposesofshowingthatthisisanexistingcreedthatPaulisquoting—thatonecan

remove it fromitscontextand thecontext flowsextremelywell,as ifnothing ismissing(showingthat it has been inserted): “Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle and set apart for thegospel of God, which he announced in advance through his prophets in the holy scriptures,concerninghisson...JesusChristourLord.”

So,Paulappearstobequotinganearliertraditionhere.Howearlywasit,andwhyisPaulquotingit?

Infact,thetraditionappearstobeoneoftheoldeststatementsoffaiththatsurvivesinourearliestChristianwritings. Several features of this creedmake it look very ancient indeed. The first is itsemphasis on the human messiahship of Jesus as the descendant of David, a view not otherwisementioned in thewritingsofPaul, our earliestChristianauthor.Aswe saw inChapter3, there aregood reasons for thinking that thiswas a view of Jesus thatwas circulating among his followersalreadyduringhislifetime:Jesuswasthoughttobetheonewhowaspredictedtocomeinfulfillmentof themessianicpropheciesof scripture.The earliest followersof Jesus continued to think thisofhimevenafterhisdeath.Hisresurrectionconfirmedforthemthateventhoughhehadnotconqueredhispoliticalenemies—thewaythemessiahwassupposedtodo—Godhadshoweredhisspecialfavoronhimbyraisinghimfromthedead.Sohereallywasthemessiah.Thisviewisstressedinthefirstpartofthecreed,asthefirstofthetwomostimportantthingstosayabouthim.

The second key feature is that the creed states that Christ was exalted at his resurrection. It isstriking that Paul indicates this happened through the “Spirit of holiness.” Not only is this phrasenever found elsewhere in Paul, it is what scholars call a Semitism. In Semitic languages, such asHebrewandAramaic,thelanguageofJesusandhisfollowers,thewayanadjective-nounconstructionismade is different from theway it ismade in other languages such as English. In these Semiticlanguages,thiskindofconstructionismadebylinkingtwonounswiththeword“of.”Forexample,ifyouwant to say “the right way” in a Semitic language, you say “the way of righteousness.” Andinsteadof“HolySpirit,”yousay“Spiritofholiness.”ThiscreedcontainsaclearSemitism,whichmakesithighlylikelythatitwasoriginallyformulatedamongAramaic-speakingfollowersofJesusinPalestine.Andthismeansitcouldrepresentearlytraditionindeed,fromtheearlyyearsinPalestineafterJesus’sfirstfollowerscametobelievethathehadbeenraisedfromthedead.

Inthatconnection,itisparticularlystrikinghowthisancientcreedunderstandsJesustobetheSonofGod.AsIhaverepeatedlyemphasized,ifsomeonesaysthatJesusisGod,orthatheistheSonofGod, or that he is divine, one needs to ask, “in what sense?” The view here is clear. Jesus was“appointed” (or “designated”) the “Son of God” when he was raised from the dead. It was at theresurrectionthatJesuswasmadetheSonofGod.IpointedoutthatPaulhimselfprobablyaddedthephrase “in power” to the creed, so that now Jesus is made the Son of God “in power” at theresurrection.Paulmayhavewantedtoaddthisphrasebecauseaccordingtohisowntheology,Jesuswas the Son of God before the resurrection, but he was exalted to an even higher state at theresurrection (aswewill seemore fully in thenext chapter).For theoriginal framerof this creed,however,itmaynothaveworkedthisway.Forhim,JesuswasthemessiahfromthehouseofDavidduring his earthly life, but at the resurrection he was made something muchmore than that. TheresurrectionwasJesus’sexaltationintodivinity.

IhavealreadyaskedwhyPaulmighthavefeltcompelledtoquotethissmallcreedatthebeginningof his letter to the Romans. It is important to remember that he is writing to clarify anymisunderstandings about himself or his gospel message and to introduce his views to RomanChristians whomay have harbored suspicions concerning them. If this reading of the situation is

right,itwouldmakesensethatPaulwouldquotethiscreed.ItmayhavebeenaveryoldcreedthatwaswidelyknowninChristiancirclesthroughouttheMediterranean.ItmayhavebeenlongacceptedasexpressingthestandardbeliefofwhoJesusis:boththeearthlymessiahdescendedfromDavidandtheheavenly Son ofGod exalted at his resurrection. Paulwould be quoting the creed, then, preciselybecause itwaswellknownandbecause itencapsulatedsoaccurately thecommonfaithPaulsharedwith theChristians inRome.As it turns out, Paul’s ownviewswere somewhat different andmoresophisticatedthanthat,butasagoodChristian,hecouldcertainlysubscribetothebasicmessageofthiscreed,whichaffirmed thatat the resurrectionsomethingsignificanthappened to Jesus.Hewasexaltedtoapositionofgrandeurandpower,madenotjusttheearthlymessiah,buttheheavenlySonofGod.

ThismessagemayhaveresonatedparticularlywiththeChristianslivinginRome.ItisimportanttorememberthattheemperorofRome,whoalsolivedinthecity,wasunderstoodbymanypeoplethroughout theempire tobe thesonofGod—that is, thesonof thedivinizedCaesarwhoprecededhim.Aswehaveseen,intheentireempire,onlytwoknownpeoplewerespecificallycalledthe“sonofGod.”Theemperorwasoneofthem,andJesuswastheother.ThiscreedshowswhyJesuswastheone who deserved this exalted title. At his resurrection, God had made him his Son. He, not theemperor,wastheonewhohadreceiveddivinestatusandsowasworthyof thehonorofbeingoneraisedtothesideofGod.

TheSpeechesinActsSeveralpassagesinthebookofActsappeartocontainold,preliteraryelementswithChristologicalviewsverysimilar totheonesetforthinRomans1:3–4.Nowthatweknowhowsuchelementsaredetected,Iwillnotanalyzethemasfully.

Acts13:32–33InChapter4IpointedoutthatthespeechesinActswerewrittenbytheauthor,“Luke,”himselfbutthatheincorporatedwithinthemearliertraditions,suchastheonein13:29whichindicatedthatmembersoftheJewishSanhedrinhadburiedJesus(ratherthanjustoneoftheirnumber,JosephofArimathea).Oneof themostremarkableofall thepreliterary traditionsofActs,whichrecordsPaulexplainingthesignificanceofJesus’s resurrectionfromthedead,comes in thesamechapter justa fewverseslater:“Wepreachthegoodnewstoyou,thatwhatGodpromisedtothefathers,thishehasfulfilledforustheirchildrenbyraisingJesus;asalsoitiswritteninthesecondpsalm,‘YouaremySon,todayIhavebegottenyou’”(Acts13:32–33).

IamnotsurethereisanotherstatementabouttheresurrectionintheentireNewTestamentthatisquitesoastounding.LetmestressattheoutsetthatinLuke’spersonalview,JesusdidnotbecometheSonofGodattheresurrection.Weknowthisbecauseofwhathesayselsewhereinhistwo-volumework,includingastatementthatIwillanalyzelaterinthischapterinwhichevenbeforeJesus’sbirth,atthe“annunciation,”Mary,Jesus’smother,istoldthatsinceshewillbemadepregnantbytheHolySpirit,“therefore” theonebornofherwillbecalled“theSonofGod.”Lukehimselfbelieved thatJesuswastheSonofGodfromhisbirth—orrather,hisconception.ButthisisdecidedlynotwhatthepreliterarytraditioninActs13:32–33says.Thespeaker,Paul,indicatesthatGodhadmadeapromiseto theJewishancestorsand that thispromisehasbeen fulfillednow to theirdescendantsbyJesus’sresurrection from thedead.He thenquotesPsalm2:7 to clarifywhathemeans: “YouaremySon,todayIhavebegottenyou.”Ifyourecall,intheHebrewBible,thisversewasoriginallytakentorefer

tothecoronationdayoftheJewishking,whenhewasanointedandthereforeshowntostandunderGod’sspecialfavor.4“Paul,”inthisspeech,takestheversenottoindicatewhathadalreadyhappenedtothekingastheSonofGod,butasaprophecyofwhatwouldhappentotherealking,Jesus,whenhewasmade theSonofGod.The fulfillmentof thepsalm,Pauldeclares, hashappened“today.”Andwhen is that “today”? It is the day of Jesus’s resurrection. That is whenGod declares that he has“begotten”JesusashisSon.

Inthispre-Lukantradition,JesuswasmadetheSonofGodattheresurrection.ThisisaviewLukeinheritedfromhistradition,anditisonethatcoincidescloselywithwhatwealreadysawinRomans1:3–4.Itappears tobetheearliestformofChristianbelief: thatGodexaltedJesus tobehisSonbyraisinghimfromthedead.

Acts2:36WefindasimilarpointofviewexpressedinanearlierspeechofActs.ImightpointoutatthisstagethatoneofthereasonsweknowthatitwasLukewhowrotethespeechesofhismaincharactersisthatthe speeches all sound very much alike: the lower-class, uneducated, illiterate, Aramaic-speakingpeasantPetergivesaspeechthatsoundsalmostexactlylikeaspeechbytheculturallyrefined,highlyeducated, literate, Greek-speaking Paul.Why do two such different people sound so much alike?Becauseneitheroneof them isactuallyspeaking:Luke is.Tomakeuphis speeches,heusedsomeoldermaterials,withpreliterarytraditionsembeddedinthespeeches.

InActs2,onthedayofPentecostwhenagreatmiraclehashappenedandPeterisexplainingitssignificancetothecrowdthathasgathered,hespeaksofJesus’sdeathandresurrection,stressingthat“GodraisedthisJesus,ofwhomallofusarewitnesses,ashewasexaltedtotherighthandofGod.”HegoesontosaythatthisexaltationofJesuswasafulfillmentofthepsalms,butthistime,ratherthanquotingPsalm2:7,hequotesPsalm110:1,anotherverseweexaminedpreviouslyasreferringtothedivinecharacterofthekingofIsrael:“TheLORDsaystomyLord,‘SitatmyrighthanduntilImakeyourenemiesyourfootstool.’”HeretheLordGodisspeakingtohisanointedone,whoisalsocalledthe “Lord.” Peter in this speech is indicating thatGodwas speaking thewords to Jesus,whomhemadetheLord—andtheconquerorofallhisenemies—byraisinghimfromthedead.

ThenhesayssomethingevenmoreclearlyabouttheresurrectionofJesus:“Lettheentirehouseof Israel knowwith assurance thatGodhasmadehimbothLord andChrist, this Jesuswhomyoucrucified”(Acts2:36).TheearliestfollowersofJesusbelievedthattheresurrectionshowedthatGodhadexaltedhimtoapositionofgrandeurandpower.Thisverseisonepieceofevidence.Here,inapreliterarytradition,welearnthatitwaspreciselybyraisingJesusfromthedeadthatGodhadmadehim themessiah and the Lord.During his lifetime Jesus’s followers had thought hewould be thefuturemessiahwhowouldreignaskinginthecomingkingdomofGodtobebroughtbytheSonofMan,asJesushimselfhadtaughtthem.Butwhentheycametobelievehewasraisedfromthedead,asActs 2:36 so clearly indicates, they concluded that he had beenmade themessiah already.Hewasalreadyrulingastheking,inheaven,elevatedtothesideofGod.AsonewhositsbesideGodonathroneintheheavenlyrealm,JesusalreadyistheChrist.

Morethanthat,heistheLord.DuringhislifetimeJesus’sdiscipleshadcalledhim“lord”—atermthatcouldbeusedbyaslaveofamaster,orbyanemployeeofaboss,orbyastudentofateacher.Asit turnsout, inGreekthe term lord ineachof thesesenseswas theverysametermasLordusedofGod, as the “Lord of all.” Just as the termChrist came to take on new significance once Jesus’sfollowersbelievedhehadbeenraisedfromthedead,sotoodidtheterm lord.Jesuswasnolonger

simplythedisciples’master-teacher.HeactuallywasrulingasLordoftheearth,becausehehadbeenexaltedtothisnewstatusbyGod.Andithappenedattheresurrection.ThemanJesushadbeenmadetheLordChrist.

Acts5:31AsimilarviewissetforthinyetanotherspeechofActs,whichagainincorporatesaveryearlyviewofChristasonewhowasexalted toadivinestatusathisresurrection.InActs5,JewishauthoritiesarrestPeterand theotherapostlesas troublemakers for theirpreaching in Jerusalem.Butanangelmiraculously allows them to escape, to the consternationof the authorities,whobring them in forfurtherquestioning.ThehighpriestforbidsthemtoteachinJesus’snameanymore,andPeterandtheothers reply that theywillobeyGodrather thanhumans—meaning theywillgoonpreaching.TheapostlespointoutthattheJewishauthoritieswereresponsibleforJesus’sdeath,but“theGodofourfathersraisedJesus...ThisoneGodexaltedtohisrighthandasLeaderandSavior”(Acts5:30–31).

Once more, then, in an early tradition we find that Jesus’s resurrection was an “exaltation”specificallyto“therighthandofGod.”Inotherwords,GodhadelevatedJesustohisownstatusandgivenhimaprominentpositionastheonewhowould“lead”and“save”thoseonearth.

LukeandHisEarlierTraditionsOnemightwonderwhy the author of these speeches, “Luke,”would use preliterary traditions thatstood at oddswithhowheunderstood Jesushimself.As I’vepointedout, nowhere else doesLukeportray theresurrectionas the timewhenJesuscame tobeexalted tobe theSonofGod.Yet that’swhattheseversesfoundinthespeechesinActsindicate.Onemightbetemptedtosaythattheseviewsarefoundinthespeechesbecausethespeechesfaithfullyrepresentwhattheapostlesactuallysaidontheseoccasions.But,asIhavealreadypointedout,weknowfromancienthistoriansthatthenormalpractice of an authorwas towrite the speeches of themain characters himself, and the similarityamongallthespeechesinActssuggeststhattheywerewrittenbythesameperson—Luke.

InfactthereisagoodexplanationforwhyLukewouldwanttousethesepreliterarytraditionsinhisspeeches:becausetheyencapsulatesowellhisemphasis intheseaddressesto“unbelievers”thatGodhasdrasticallyanddramaticallyreversedwhathumansdidtoJesus,showingtherebythathehadaradicallydifferentevaluationofwhoJesuswas.HumansabusedandkilledJesus;Godreversedthatexecutionbyraisinghimfromthedead.HumansmockedJesusandheldhimtobethelowestofthelow, an inferior human being;God exalted Jesus and raised him to his right hand,making him aglorifieddivinefigure.

Thesepreliterary fragmentsprovidedLukewith just thematerialheneeded tomake thispoint,andsoheusedthemthroughouthisspeechesinordertostresshispowerfulmessage.TheAlmightyGodhadreversedwhatlowlyhumanshaddone,andJesus,farfrombeingafailedprophetorafalsemessiah,wasshowntobetherulerofall.ByraisingJesusfromthedead,GodhadmadehimhisownSon,theMessiah-King,theLord.

EvaluatingtheEarliestViewsofChristSOFARIHAVEnotgivenadescriptivenametothisveryearlyformofChristologicalbeliefinwhichGodraisedJesusfromthedead—notinordertogivehimalongerlifehereonearth,butinorderto

exalthimashisownSonuptotheheavenlyrealm,wherehecouldsitbesideGodathisrighthand,ruling togetherwith theLordGodAlmighty himself.Traditionally in discussions of theology thisunderstandingofChristhasbeencalledalowChristologybecauseitunderstandsthatJesusstartedoffasahumanbeingwhowaslikeotherhumans.Hemayhavebeenmorerighteousthanothers;hemayhaveearnedGod’sspecialfavormorethanothers.Buthestartedoutasahumanandnothingmore.Youwillnotice that in thepreliterary traditions Ihavediscussed there isno talkabout Jesusbeingbornofavirginandcertainlynotalkofhimbeingdivineduringhislifetime.Heisahumanfigure,possiblyamessiah.Butthenatacriticalpointofhisexistence,heiselevatedfromhispreviouslowlyexistencedownherewithus,theothermeremortals,tositatGod’srighthandinapositionofhonor,power,andauthority.InamomentIwillregisteranobjectiontocallingthisa“low”Christology—butfornowitisenoughsaythatitdoesmakesensethatsometheologianshavecalleditthat.Init,Jesusbeginsatalowpoint,downherewithus.

SometimesthisviewisalsoreferredtoasanadoptionistChristology,becauseinitChristisnotthoughttobeadivinebeing“bynature.”Thatis,hedidnotpreexistbeforehewasbornintheworld,he was not a divine being who came to earth, he was not of the same kind of “essence” as Godhimself.Hewasinsteadahumanbeingwhohasbeen“adopted”byGodtoadivinestatus.ThushewasnotGodbyvirtueofwhohewas,butbyvirtueofthefactthattheCreatorandLordofallthingschosetoelevatehimtoapositionofprominence,eventhoughhebeganasalowlyhuman.

The problemwith this adoptionist nomenclature—aswith the term low Christology—is that itspeaksofthisviewofChristinarathercondescendingway,asifitwereaninadequateunderstanding(Jesuswasoriginally“just”aman;hewas“only”anadoptedson).ItistruethattheviewthatJesusbeganasahumanbutwasexaltedtoadivinestatuswasindeedsupersededbyanotherperspective—theonethatIdealwithinthenextchapter.ThatotherviewindicatesthatJesuswasapreexistentdivinebeingbeforehecameintotheworld.ThatviewissometimesreferredtoasahighChristology—sinceinitChristisunderstoodtohavestartedout“upthere”withGodintheheavenlyrealm.InthatviewChristwasnotadoptedtobetheSonofGod;healreadywastheSonofGodbyvirtueofwhohewas,not byvirtue ofwhatGoddid to him in order tomakehim somethingother thanwhat hewas bynature.

All the same, even though later theologians came to consider a “low” or “adoptionist”Christologytobeinadequate,Idonotthinkweshouldoverlookjusthowamazingthisviewwasforthepeoplewho firstheld it.For them, Jesuswasnot“merely”adopted tobeGod’s son.That’s thewrongemphasisaltogether.TheybelievedthatJesushadbeenexaltedtothehigheststatusthatanyonecouldpossibly imagine.Hewaselevated toan impossibly exalted state.Thiswas themost fantasticthinganyonecouldsayaboutChrist:hehadactuallybeenelevatedtoapositionnexttoGodAlmightywhohadmadeallthingsandwouldbethejudgeofallpeople.JesuswasTHESonofGod.Thiswasnotalow,inferiorunderstandingofChrist;itwasanamazing,breathtakingview.

For this reason, I usually prefer not to speak of it as a “low Christology” or even as an“adoptionist Christology,” but as an exaltationChristology. In it, the man Jesus is showered withdivinefavorsbeyondanyone’swildestdreams,honoredbyGodtoanunbelievableextent,elevatedtoadivinestatusonalevelwithGodhimself,sittingathisrighthand.

PartofwhathasconvincedmethatthisunderstandingofChristshouldnotbeshuntedasideasaninferiorviewinvolvesnewresearchonwhat itmeant tobeadoptedasasonin theRomanempire,whichwasthecontext,ofcourse,withinwhichtheseviewsofChristwereformulated.Todaywemaythink that an adopted child is not aparent’s “real” child, and in somecircles, unfortunately, this is

takentomeanthatthechilddoesnot“really”belongtotheparent.Manyofusdonotthinkthisisauseful,loving,orhelpfulview,butthereitis:somepeoplehaveit.SotoowhenthinkingaboutGodandhisSon.IfJesusis“only”adopted,thenhe’snot“really”theSonofGod,buthejusthappenstohavebeengrantedamoreexaltedstatusthantherestofus.

A study of adoption in Roman society shows that this view is highly problematic and, in fact,probablywrong.AsignificantbookbyNewTestamentspecialistMichaelPeppard,TheSonofGodintheRomanWorld, dealswith just this issue, to showwhat itmeant at that time and place to be anadopted son.5 Peppard persuasively argues that scholars (and other readers) have gotten it wrongwhentheyhavemaintainedthatanadoptedsonhadlowersocialstatusthana“natural”son(thatis,asasonactuallybornofaparent).Infact,justtheoppositewasthecase.IneliteRomanfamilies,itwastheadoptedsonwhoreallymattered,notthesonsbornofthephysicalunionofamarriedcouple.Asoneveryobviousexample,JuliusCaesarhadanaturalsonwithCleopatrawhowasnamedCaesarion.And he had one adopted son, a nephewwhomwe’ve alreadymet andwhom hemade his son byadoptioninhiswill.Whichwasthemoreimportant?Caesarionisamerefootnoteinhistory;you’veprobablyneverheardofhim.AndOctavian?BecausehewastheadoptedsonofCaesar,heinheritedhisproperty, status,andpower.YouknowhimbetterasCaesarAugustus—the firstemperorof theRomanempire.ThathappenedbecauseJuliusCaesarhadadoptedhim.

Itwas in fact often the case that apersonwhowas a sonbyadoption in theRomanworldwasgivenagreater,higherstatusthanachildwhowasasonbybirth.Thenaturalsonwaswhohewasmoreorlessbyaccident;hisvirtuesandfinequalitieshadnothingtodowiththefactthathewasbornas the child of twoparents.The adopted son on the other hand—whowas normally adopted as anadult—wasadoptedpreciselybecauseofhisfinequalitiesandexcellentpotential.Hewasmadegreatbecausehehaddemonstratedthepotentialforgreatness,notbecauseoftheaccidentofhisbirth.ThiscanbeseeninthepraiseshoweredupontheemperorTrajanbyoneofhissubjects,thefamousauthorPlinytheYounger,whostatedthat“yourmeritsdidindeedcallforyouradoptionassuccessorlongago.”6

Thisiswhyitwasoftenthecasethatadoptedsonswerealreadyadultswhenmadethelegalheirofapowerfulfigureoraristocrat.Andwhatdiditmeantobemadethelegalheir?Itmeantinheritingallof the adoptive father ’swealth,property, status,dependents, andclients—inotherwords, all of theadopted father ’spowerandprestige.AsRomanhistorianChristianeKunsthasput it: “Theadoptedson...exchangedhisown[status]andtookoverthestatusoftheadoptivefather.”7

WhentheearliestChristianstalkedaboutJesusbecomingtheSonofGodathisresurrection,theyweresayingsomethingtrulyremarkableabouthim.HewasmadetheheirofallthatwasGod’s.HeexchangedhisstatusforthestatuspossessedbytheCreatorandrulerofallthings.HereceivedallofGod’spowerandprivileges.Hecoulddefydeath.Hecouldforgivesins.Hecouldbethefuturejudgeoftheearth.Hecouldrulewithdivineauthority.HewasforallintentsandpurposesGod.

Thesevariousaspectsofhisexaltedstatearecloselyconnectedwith thevarioushonorific titlesChristians bestowed upon Jesus in his exalted state. Hewas the Son of God. By no stretch of theimagination did that mean that he was “merely” the “adopted” Son of God. It entailed the mostfantasticclaimsaboutJesusthatthesepeoplecouldimagine:astheSonofGodhewastheheirtoallthatwasGod’s.HewasalsotheSonofMan,theonewhomGodhadentrustedtobethefuturejudgeof theentireworld.Hewas theheavenlymessiahwhowas ruling—now—over thekingdomofhisFather,theKingofkings.Andinthatcapacityastheheavenlyruler,hewastheLord,themasterandsovereignoveralltheearth.

WemayseewhysomeonewouldcallthisalowChristology,butitcertainlyisnotsayinganything“lowly.”This is an exaltationChristology that is affirming stunning things about the teacher fromruralGalileewhowasexaltedtotherighthandofGod,whohadraisedhimfromthedead.

It is also important to stress that preciselywhen theChristianswere starting to say such thingsabout Jesus is when the emperors were beginning to be worshiped with increased frequencythroughout the Roman world. The emperor was the son of God (because he was adopted by theprecedingemperorwhohadbeendivinizedathisdeath);JesuswastheSonofGod.Theemperorwasregardedasdivine;Jesuswasdivine.Theemperorwasthegreatruler;JesuswasthegreatRuler.Theemperor was lord and sovereign; Jesus was Lord and Sovereign. This lower-class peasant fromGalileewho had gotten on thewrong side of the law and had been crucifiedwas in fact themostpowerful being in the universe. The emperor, according to this Christian view, was in reality nocompetition. Jesus’s adoptive father was not simply a preceding emperor; he was the Lord GodAlmighty.

It is because of this exalted status that Jesus was deemed worthy of worship. If the earliestChristiansheldsuchelevatedviewsofJesusastheexaltedSonofGodsoonafterhisresurrection,itisprobablyalreadyatthisearlystagethattheybegantoshowvenerationtohiminwayspreviouslyshown toGodhimself. In two importantbooks,NewTestament scholarLarryHurtadohas tried tosolvethedilemmaofhowJesuscouldbeworshipedasadivinebeingsoearlyinthehistoryoftheChristianreligion—virtuallyrightaway—ifinfacttheChristiansconsideredthemselvesmonotheists,not ditheists (worshipers of twogods).8Hurtado argues that both thingswere simultaneously true:ChristiansmaintainedtherewasonlyoneGod,andtheyworshipedJesusasGodalongsideGod.Howwas thispossible?HurtadoseesChristianityasdevelopingabinitaryworship—inwhich JesuswasworshipedastheLord,alongsideGod,withoutsacrificingtheideathatthereisonlyoneGod.Inhisview,Christiansmaintained that sinceGod had exalted Jesus to a divine status, he had notmerelypermittedbutevenrequiredthevenerationofJesus.Hurtadoseesthisasauniquedevelopmentwithinthehistoryofancientreligion—theworshipoftwodivinebeingswithinatheologythatclaimsthereisonlyone.InlaterchapterswewillseehowtheologianseventuallycametogripswiththisproblemofhowJesuscouldbereveredasGodwithoutsacrificingacommitmenttomonotheism.Fornowitisenoughtostressthatthiswasindeedthecase:ChristiansinsistedthattheybelievedinonlyoneGod,andyettheyreveredJesusasdivineandworshipedtheir“LordJesus”alongwithGod.

TheBackwardMovementofChristologyTHE VIEW THAT THE earliest Christians understood Jesus to have become the Son of God at hisresurrectionisnotrevolutionaryamongscholarsoftheNewTestament.OneofthegreatestscholarsofthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcenturywasRaymondBrown,aRomanCatholicpriestwhospentalargechunkofhiscareer teachingstudentsat the (Protestant)UnionTheologicalSeminary inNewYorkCity.Brownwrotebooksthatwerechallengingandinsightfulforfellowbiblicalscholarsandbooksthatwereaccessibleandenlighteningforthelayperson.

AmonghismostfamouscontributionswasawayofsketchingthedevelopmentofearlyChristianviewsofJesus.BrownagreedwiththeviewIhavemappedouthere:theearliestChristiansheldthatGodhadexaltedJesustoadivinestatusathisresurrection.(Thisshows,amongotherthings,thatthisisnotsimplya“skeptical”viewora“secular”viewofearlyChristology;itisoneheldbybelievingscholarsaswell.)Brownpointedoutthatyoucantraceakindofchronologicaldevelopmentofthis

viewthroughtheGospels.9ThisoldestChristologyofallmaybefoundinthepreliterarytraditionsinPaulandthebookofActs,butitisnottheviewpresentedinanyoftheGospels.Instead,aswewillseeat greater length, the oldest Gospel, Mark, seems to assume that it was at his baptism that JesusbecametheSonofGod;thenextGospels,MatthewandLuke,indicatethatJesusbecametheSonofGodwhen hewas born; and the lastGospel, John, presents Jesus as the Son ofGod frombeforecreation. In Brown’s view this chronological sequencing of the Gospelsmaywell indeed be howChristians developed their views. Originally, Jesus was thought to have been exalted only at theresurrection;asChristiansthoughtmoreaboutthematter,theycametothinkthathemusthavebeentheSonofGodduringhisentireministry,sothathebecametheSonofGodatitsoutset,atbaptism;astheythoughtevenmoreaboutit,theycametothinkhemusthavebeentheSonofGodforhisentirelife,andsohewasbornofavirginandinthatsensewasthe(literal)SonofGod;andastheythoughtaboutitmoreagain,theycametothinkthathemusthavebeentheSonofGodevenbeforehecameintotheworld,andsotheysaidhewasapreexistentdivinebeing.

The problem with this chronological sequencing of the Gospels is that it does not reflect theactualchronologicaldevelopmentofearlyChristianviewsofJesus.Thatistosay,eventhoughitistruethatthesearetheviewsastheydevelopthroughtheGospels(fromtheearliesttothelatest),someChristiansweresayingthatJesuswasapreexistentbeing(a“later”view)evenbeforePaulbegantowriteinthe50s—wellbeforeourearliestGospelwaswritten.10Therealityis—andBrownwouldnothavedisagreedwiththis—viewsofJesusdidnotdevelopalongastraightlineineverypartofearlyChristianityandat thesamerate.DifferentChristians indifferentchurches indifferent regionshaddifferentviewsofJesus,almostfromtheget-go.IarguethatthereweretwofundamentallydifferentChristologicalviews:onethatsawJesusasabeingfrom“downbelow”whocametobe“exalted”(theview I’m exploring in this chapter), and the other that saw Jesus as a being originally from “upabove”whocame to earth from theheavenly realm (theview I’ll explore in thenext chapter).ButevenwithinthesetwofundamentallydifferenttypesofChristology,thereweresignificantvariations.

JesusasSonofGodatHisBaptismBrown does appear to be right that at some times and places, after the initial belief thatGod hadexalted Jesus at his resurrection, some Christians came to think that the exaltation had happenedbeforehispublicministry.Thatiswhyhecoulddospectaculardeedssuchashealingthesick,castingoutdemons,andraisingthedead;thatiswhyhecouldforgivesinsasGod’srepresentativeonearth;that iswhyhecouldoccasionally revealhisglory—hewasalreadyadopted tobeGod’sSonat theveryoutsetofhisministry,whenJohntheBaptistbaptizedhim.

TheBaptisminMarkThisappearstobetheviewoftheGospelofMark,inwhichthereisnowordofJesus’spreexistenceorofhisbirthtoavirgin.Surelyifthisauthorbelievedineitherview,hewouldhavementionedit;they are, after all, rather important ideas. But no, this Gospel begins by describing the baptismministryofJohntheBaptistandindicatesthatlikeotherJews,Jesuswasbaptizedbyhim.ButwhenJesuscomesupoutofthewater,heseestheheavenssplitopen,theSpiritofGoddescendsuponhimasadove,andavoicefromheavensays,“YouaremybelovedSon,inyouIamwellpleased”(Mark1:9–11).

Thisvoicedoesnotappeartobestatingapreexistingfact.Itappearstobemakingadeclaration.ItisatthistimethatJesusbecomestheSonofGodforMark’sGospel.11Immediatelyafterthis,Jesus

begins his spectacularministry, not only proclaiming the imminent arrival ofGod’s kingdom,butalsohealingallwhoaresick,showingthatheismorepowerfulthanthedemonicspiritsintheworld—sothatheisnomeremortal—andevenraisingthedead.HeistheLordoflife,alreadyduringhisministry. He demonstrates that he has been given authority to forgive sins committed not againsthimself,buteitheragainstothersoragainstGod.Hisopponentsdeclarethat“noonecanforgivesinsbutGodalone.”Jesustellsthemthathe,theSonofMan,hastheauthorityonearthtoforgivesins.

Jesus’s glory can also be seen in his great miracles—multiplying loaves and fishes for themultitudes,commandingthestormtobestill,walkingonwater.HalfwaythroughtheGospel,Jesusrevealshistrueidentitytothreeofhisdisciples,ashegoesonamountaininthepresenceofPeter,James,andJohnandis transfiguredintoaradiantbeingwhileMosesandElijahappear inorder tospeakwithhim(symbolizingthefactthatheistheonepredictedinthelaw[=Moses]andtheprophets[=Elijah]).Jesusisnomeremortal.HeisthegloriousSonofGodwhohascomeinfulfillmentofGod’splan.

Ifonealwayshastoask“inwhatsense”isJesusdivine,forMark,JesusisdivineinthesensethatheistheonewhohasbeenadoptedtobetheSonofGodathisbaptism,notlaterathisresurrection.

TheBaptisminLukeAremnantofthisviewcanbefoundinthelaterGospelofLuke.Aswewillsee,Lukehasadifferentunderstanding of when Jesus became the Son of God. But as we have already noticed, he willoccasionallyincludeatraditionthatbothpredatesanddiffersfromhisownviews.ThishappensinthesceneofJesus’sbaptism.Herethematterisalittlebitdifficulttoexplain.Inoneofmyearlierbooks,MisquotingJesus,IdiscussthefactthatwedonothavetheoriginalcopyofLuke,orMark,orPaul’swritings,oranyoftheearlyChristiantextsthatmakeuptheNewTestament.Whatwehavearelatercopies—inmostinstances,copiesthatweremademanycenturieslater.Thesevariouscopiesalldifferfromoneanother,ofteninsmallways,butsometimesinrathersignificantways.Oneofthepassagesthathasbeenchanged ina significantwayby later scribes involves the storyof Jesus’sbaptism inLuke.

ScholarshavelongdebatedwhatthevoiceactuallysaidatJesus’sbaptisminthisGospel.ThisisbecausemostmanuscriptsindicatethatthevoicesaidthesamethingthatitsaysinMark,“Youaremybelovedson,inyouIamwellpleased.”Butinseveralofouroldwitnessestothetext,thevoicesayssomethingelse. ItquotesPsalm2:7:“YouaremySon, todayIhavebegottenyou.”TherearegoodreasonsforthinkingthatthisiswhatLukeoriginallywroteinthispassage(Luke3:22).12Itisaverystarksaying,sinceitiswhenJesuswasbaptizedthathewas“begotten”—thatis,born—astheSonofGod.Thereasonlaterscribesmayhavewantedtochangetheverseshouldbeobvious:whenscribeswerecopyingtheirtextsofLukeinlatercenturies,theviewthatJesuswasmadetheSonatthebaptismwasconsiderednotjust inadequate,butheretical.Forlaterscribes,JesuswasthepreexistentSonofGod,notonewhobecametheSonatthebaptism.

Lukehimself—whoeverhewas—doesnotthinkJesuswasapreexistentSonofGod.Asit turnsout,hedoesnotthinkJesusbecametheSonatthebaptismeither,aswewillsee.Thenwhydoeshehavethevoicesaythis?Again,Lukeisfondofincorporatingavarietyofpreliterarytraditionsthathehad heard, even if they differ from his own views. And so in a speech of Acts he can include atradition that says Jesus became the Son ofGod at his resurrection (13:33); in hisGospel he canincludeonethatsaysJesusbecametheSonofGodathisbaptism(3:22);andheincorporatesanothertraditionthatsayshebecametheSonofGodathisbirth(1:35).MaybeLukesimplywantedtostress

that Jesus was the Son of God at all the significant points of his existence: birth, baptism, andresurrection.

JesusasSonofGodatHisBirthInthefinalformofLuke’sGospel,itappearsthatJesusistobethoughtofasbecomingtheSonofGod, for the first time, at the moment of birth. Or, to be more precise, at the moment of hisconception.WesawinChapter1that inthepaganworldtherewereavarietyofwaysthatahumancouldbethoughtofashavingbecomedivine.Somehumansweremadedivineattheirdeaths,whenthey were taken up to the heavenly realm to live with the gods (e.g., Romulus). This would becomparable to Christian traditions that Jesus was exalted to God’s right hand as his Son at theresurrection.Inotherpagantraditionsadivinehumanwasbornthatway,afteragodsuchasthelustyZeushadsexwithabeautifulwomanhecouldnotresist.TheoffspringwasliterallythesonofZeus(e.g.,Heracles[Roman:Hercules]).TherearenoChristiantraditionsinwhichthishappens.TheGodof theChristianswasnot like thephilandererZeus, filledwith lustand fullof imaginativeways tosatisfy it. For theChristians,Godwas transcendent, remote, “up there”—not one to have sexwithbeautifulgirls.Atthesametime,somethingsomewhatlikethepaganmythsappearstoliebehindthebirthnarrativefoundintheGospelofLuke.

TheBirthofJesusinLukeInthisGospel,JesuswasbornofMary,whohadneverhadhumansex.Shehadneverhaddivinesexeither, exactly, but itwasGod,not ahumanwhomadeherpregnant. In the famous “annunciation”scene,theangelGabrielcomestoMary,whoisbetrothedtobemarriedbuthasnotyetgonethroughthe ceremony or had any physical contact with her espoused, Joseph. Gabriel tells her that she isspecially favoredbyGodandwillconceiveandbearason.She is takenaback—shehasneverhadsex:Howcansheconceive?Theangeltellsheringraphicterms:“TheHolySpiritwillcomeuponyou and thePower of theMostHighwill overshadowyou; therefore the onewho is bornwill becalledholy,theSonofGod”(Luke1:35).Icallthisdescription“graphic”becausethereisnothinginittomakethereaderthinkthattheangelisspeakinginmetaphors.InaveryphysicalsensetheHolySpiritofGodisto“comeupon”Maryand“therefore”—animportantwordhere—thechildshebearswillbecalledtheSonofGod.HewillbecalledtheSonofGodbecausehewillinfactbetheSonofGod. It is God, not Joseph, who will makeMary pregnant, so the child she bears will be God’soffspring.Here,JesusbecomestheSonofGodnotathisresurrectionorhisbaptism,butalreadyathisconception.

TheBirthofJesusinMatthewItisinterestingtoobservethattheGospelofMatthewalsohasanaccountofJesus’sbirthinwhichhismotherisavirgin.OnemightinferfromthisaccountaswellthatJesusistheSonofGodbecauseofthecircumstancesofhisunusualbirth.ButinthecaseofMatthew,thisconclusionwouldindeedneedtobemadebyinference:Matthewsaysnothingofthesort.ThereisnoverseinMatthewsimilar towhatLukesaysinLuke1:35.Instead,accordingtoMatthew,thereasonJesus’smotherwasavirginwas so that his birth could fulfill what had been said by a spokesperson of God many centuriesearlier,when theprophet Isaiah in theJewishscriptureswrote,“Avirginshallconceiveandbearason,andhisnameshallbecalledImmanuel”(Isa.7:14).Matthewquotesthisverseandgivesitasthe

reasonforJesus’sunusualconception—itwastofulfillprophecy(Matt.1:23).IthasfrequentlybeennotedthatIsaiahactuallydoesnotprophesythatthecomingmessiahwillbe

born of a virgin. If you read Isaiah 7 in its own literary context, it is clear that the author is notspeakingaboutthemessiahatall.Thesituationisquitedifferent.IttakesplaceintheeighthcenturyBCE,duringacalamitoustime.IsaiahistalkingtothekingofJudah,Ahaz,whoisveryupset,andforgood reason.The twokingdoms to thenorthof Judah—IsraelandSyria—haveattackedhiscapitalcityofJerusalemtoforcehimtojointheminanallianceagainsttherisingworldpowerofAssyria.Heisafraidthatthesetwonorthernopponentswilllayhiskingdomtowaste.Isaiah,theprophet,tellshimthatitisnotso.Thereisayoungwoman(notavirgin)whohasconceivedachild,andshewillgivebirthtoason,whowillbecalledImmanuel,whichmeans“Godiswithus.”ThatGodis“with”theJudeanswillbecomeclear,becausebeforethechildisoldenoughtoknowthedifferencebetweengoodandevil,thetwokingdomsthatareattackingJerusalemwillbedispersed,andgoodtimeswillreturntoAhazandhispeople.That’swhatIsaiahwasreferringto.

AsaChristianlivingcenturieslater,MatthewreadthebookofIsaiahnotintheoriginalHebrewlanguage, but in his own tongue, Greek.When the Greek translators before his day rendered thepassage,theytranslatedtheHebrewforwordyoungwoman(alma)usingaGreekword(parthenos)thatcanindeedmeanjustthatbutthateventuallytookontheconnotationofa“youngwomanwhohasnever had sex.”Matthew took the passage to be a messianic tradition and so indicated that Jesusfulfilled it, just ashe fulfilledall theotherpropheciesof scripture,bybeingbornof a “virgin.” Itdoes not take toomuch thought to realize, though, thatMatthewmay have been giving “scripturaljustification”foratraditionheinheritedthatoriginallyhadadifferentimport:likeLuke’stradition,theonethatcametoMatthewmayoriginallyhavespokenofJesusastheuniqueSonofGodbecausehewasbornofavirgin,withGodashisfather.

Whetherthisisthecaseornot,IshouldstressthatthesevirginalconceptionnarrativesofMatthewandLuke are by no stretch of the imagination embracing the view that later became the orthodoxteaching of Christianity. According to this later view, Christ was a preexistent divine being who“becameincarnate[i.e.,“human”]throughtheVirginMary.”ButnotaccordingtoMatthewandLuke.Ifyoureadtheiraccountsclosely,youwillseethattheyhavenothingtodowiththeideathatChristexistedbeforehewasconceived.InthesetwoGospels,Jesuscomesintoexistenceatthemomentofhisconception.Hedidnotexistbefore.

Whether or not Matthew’s tradition originally coincided with Luke’s view that Jesus wasconceivedbyavirginwithoutsexualintercoursesothathewasliterallytheSonofGod,thisview,asmostpronouncedinLuke,isakindof“exaltation”Christologythathasbeenpushedbackjustaboutasfarassuchaviewcango.IfanexaltationChristologymaintainsthatahumanhasbeenelevatedtoadivinestatus,thenthereisnopointforthattohappenearlierthanthemomentofconceptionitself.JesusisnowtheSonofGodforhisentirelife,beginningwith...hisbeginning.Onecouldargue,infact, that thishaspushedthemomentofexaltationsofarbackthatherewenolongerevenhaveanexaltationChristology, aChristology from “down below.” For here, Jesus is not portrayed in anysenseasbeginninglifeasanormalhumanwhobecauseofhisgreatvirtueordeepobediencetothewillofGodisexaltedtoadivinestatus.Hestartsoutasdivine,fromthepointofhisconception.

JesusastheExaltedSonofGodTHOSE OF US WHO are deeply invested in the early Christian traditions would give a great deal to

discoveraGospelwrittenbyoneof thefirstfollowersofJesusayearorsoafterhisresurrection.Unfortunately,wealmost certainlyneverwill. Jesus’sdiscipleswere lower-class, illiteratepeasantsfromremoteruralareasofGalilee,whereveryfewpeoplecouldread,letalonewrite,andletalonecreatefull-scalecompositions.Wedon’tknowofasingleauthorfromthattimeandplace,JewishorChristian,whowascapableofproducingaGospelevenhadsheorhethoughtofdoingso.ThefirstfollowersofJesusprobablyneverthoughtofdoingso.They,likeJesus,anticipatedthattheendoftheagewasimminent,thattheSonofMan—nowthoughttobeJesushimself—wassoontocomefromheaveninjudgmentontheearthandtousherinGod’sgoodkingdom.ThesepeoplehadnothoughtofrecordingtheeventsofJesus’slifeforposteritybecauseinaveryrealsense,therewasnotgoingtobeaposterity.

But even if the original apostles had been forward-looking and concerned about the needs ofposterity(oratleastthelongingsoftwenty-first-centuryhistorians),theywouldnothavebeenabletowriteaGospel.TheonlywaytheycouldpassonthestoryofJesuswasbywordofmouth.Andsotheytoldthestoriestooneanother,totheirconverts,andtotheirconverts’converts.Thishappenedyear after year, until some decades later, in different parts of the world, highly educated Greek-speakingChristianswrotedownthetraditionstheyhadheard,therebyproducingtheGospelswestillhave.

Evenso,historianscanatleastdream,andevenifitisanidledream,itisworthconsideringwhataGospelwritten in theyear31CE byoneof the survivingdisciplesmighthave looked like. If theviewsIhavepresentedin thischapterareanywherenearcorrect, this imaginedGospelwouldlookverydifferent from theoneswehavenow inherited—and itsviewof Jesuswouldnot at all be theviewthatcametobedominantamonglatertheologianswhenChristianitybecametheofficialreligionoftheRomanworld.

ThisnonexistentGospelwouldbe filledwith the teachingsof Jesusashewent fromvillage totownproclaimingthat thekingdomofGodwassoontoarrivewiththecomingoftheSonofMan.Thedayofjudgmentwasimminent,andpeopleneededtoprepareforit.MyguessisthatthisGospelwould not be filled with themiraculous things that Jesus had done. He would not spend his dayshealingthesick,calmingthestorm,feedingthemultitudes,castingoutdemons,andraisingthedead.Those storieswere to come later, as Jesus’s followers describedhis early life in light of his laterexaltation.Instead,thisGospelwouldtellindetail,probablyfromeyewitnessreports,whathappenedduring the last week of Jesus’s life, when he made a pilgrimage with some of his followers toJerusalem and enraged the local authorities with his outburst in the temple and his incendiarypreachingoftheimminentcomingofjudgment—acataclysmicdestructionthatwouldbedirectednotonlyagainsttheRomanoppressors,butalsoagainsttherulingauthoritiesamongtheJews,theelitepriestsandtheirfollowers.

ThegreathighlightoftheGospel,though,wouldcomeattheend.Jesushadbeenrejectedbythescribes and elders of the people and handed over to Pontius Pilate, who found him guilty forinsurrectionagainst thestate.Toputadecisiveend tohis troublemaking, rabble-rousingnonsense,Pilatehadorderedhimcrucified.ButeventhoughJesushadbeenunceremoniouslyexecutedbythepowerofRome,hisstorywasnotyetover.Forhehadappeared tohisdisciples,aliveagain.Howcouldhestillbealive?Itwasnotbecausehesurvivedcrucifixion.No,Godhadraisedhim,bodily,fromthedead.Andwhyishestillnotamongus?BecauseGodnotonlybroughthimbacktolife,heexaltedhimuptoheavenashisownSon,tositonathroneatGod’srighthand,toruleasthemessiahofIsraelandtheLordofall,untilhecomesbackasthecosmicjudgeoftheearth,verysoon.

InthisGospelJesuswouldnothavebecometheSonofGodforhisentireministry,startingwithhisbaptism,asintheGospelofMarkandinatraditionretainedintheGospelofLuke.AndhewouldnothavebeentheSonofGodforthewholeofhislife,beginningwithhisconceptionbyavirginwhowasovershadowedbytheHolySpiritsothathersonwouldbeGod’sownoffspring,asinLukeandintraditionspreservedbyMatthew.Norwouldhebeadivinebeingwhopreexistedhiscomingintotheworld, asattestedby suchauthorsasPauland John.No,hebecame theSonofGodwhenGodworked his greatest miracle on him, raising him from the dead and adopting him as his Son byexaltinghimtohisrighthandandbestowinguponhimhisveryownpower,prestige,andstatus.

CHAPTER7

JesusasGodonEarth

EarlyIncarnationChristologies

IHAVETAUGHTATTWOmajorresearchuniversitiessincebeginningmycareer.Forfouryears,inthemid-1980s,ItaughtatRutgersUniversityinNewJersey,andsince1988IhavebeenattheUniversityofNorthCarolinaatChapelHill. Ihavetaughtawiderangeofstudents ineveryrespect, includingwithrespecttoreligion:Christians,Jews,Muslims,Buddhists,Hindus,pagans,atheists.MyChristianstudentshavebeeninternallydiverseaswell,fromhard-corefundamentaliststoliberalProtestantstoGreekOrthodoxtoRomanCatholicto...nameyourdenomination.Overtheyearsithasstruckmethateven thoughmyChristianstudentscomefromsucha rangeofbackgrounds,when itcomes totheirviewsofChrist,theyareremarkablyconstant.ThemajorityofthemthinkthatJesusisGod.

Intraditionaltheology,aswewillseeinlaterchapters,ChristcametoberegardedasbothfullyGod and fully human.Hewas not half of each—part God and part human.HewasGod in everyrespect and human in every respect.My students tend to “get” the God part, but not somuch the“human”part.Formanyofthem,JesusreallywasGodwalkingtheearth;andbecausehewasGod,hewasnot“really”humanbutwasonlyinsomesortofhumanguise.AsGod,Jesuscouldhavedoneanythinghewantedtodo.Ifhehadchosen,hecouldhavespokenSwahiliasaninfant.Whynot?HewasGod!

But being human means having human weaknesses, limitations, desires, passions, andshortcomings.DidJesushavethese?Washe“fully”human?Didheevertreatsomeoneunfairly?Didhe ever say somethingnasty about someone?Didhe everget angrywithoutgood reason?Washeeverjealousorcovetous?Didheeverlustafterawomanoraman?Ifnot—inwhatsense,really,washe“fully”human?

Iobviouslydon’texpectmystudents tobeadvancedtheologians—andmyclassesarenotabouttheology.TheyareaboutthehistoryofearlyChristianityand,especially,abouthistoricalapproachesto the New Testament. But it is interesting, even in the class context, to see that my students’Christological views tend to be drawnmore from the Gospel of John than from the other three,earlierGospels.ItisintheGospelofJohn,andonlyinJohn,thatJesussayssuchthingsas“beforeAbraham was, I am” (8:58) and “I and the Father are one” (10:30). In this Gospel Jesus says,“WhoeverhasseenmehasseentheFather”(14:9).AndinthisGospelJesustalksaboutexistinginagloriousstatewithGodtheFatherbeforehebecamehuman(17:5).That’swhatmanyofmystudentsbelieve.But as they study theNewTestamentmore, they come to see that such self-claims are notmadebyJesusinMatthew,Mark,orLuke.Sowhoisright?

ScholarshavelongheldthattheviewofChristintheGospelofJohnwasalaterdevelopmentintheChristiantradition.ItwasnotsomethingthatJesushimselfactuallytaught,anditisnotsomethingthatcanbefoundintheotherGospels.InJohn,JesusisapreexistentdivinebeingwhoisequalwithGod.TheearliestChristians—Jesus’sdisciples,forexample—didnotbelievethis.Andthereareclear

historical reasons for thinking theydidnot.TheearliestChristiansheldexaltationChristologies inwhich thehumanbeingJesuswasmade theSonofGod—forexample,athis resurrectionorathisbaptism—asweexaminedinthepreviouschapter.JohnhasadifferentChristology.Inhisview,Christwasadivinebeingwhobecamehuman.IcallthisanincarnationChristology.

ExaltationandIncarnationChristologiesWEHAVEALREADYSEENthatearlyChristianshadviewscorrespondingtotwoofthecommonGreek,Roman,andJewishnotionsofhowahumanbeingcouldalsobedivine:bybeingexaltedtothedivinerealm or by being born to a divine parent.What I am now calling incarnation Christologies arerelatedtothethirdmodelofadivinehuman,inwhichadivinebeing—agod—comesfromheaventotake on human flesh temporarily, before returning to his original heavenly home. The wordincarnation means something like coming in the flesh or being made flesh. An incarnationChristology, then,maintains that Christwas a preexistent divine beingwho became human beforereturningtoGodinheaven.Here,Jesusisnotunderstoodtobeahumanwhoiselevatedtoadivinestatus;instead,heisaheavenlybeingwhocondescendstobecometemporarilyhuman.

IhavealreadymadethecasethatfollowersofJesuswerenotcallinghimGodduringhislifetimeandthathedidnotrefertohimselfasadivinebeingwhohadcomefromheaven.Iftheyhaddoneso,surely there would be a heavy dose of such views in our earliest records of his words—in theSynopticGospelsandtheirsources(Mark,Q,M,andL).Instead,itwastheresurrectionthatprovidedthe turning point in understanding who Jesus was, as an exalted being. I contend that the earliestexaltationChristologies very quicklymorphed into an incarnationChristology, as earlyChristiansdeveloped their views about Jesus during the early years after his death. The stimulus for thetransformation of Christology was probably provided by a theological view that I have alreadydiscussed.Oneneedstoask:WhatdidJewsthinkthatapersonbecameifhewastakenuptoheaven?AswehaveseeninthecaseofMosesandothers,suchapersonwasthoughttohavebecomeanangel,oranangel-likebeing.1

In themost thorough investigationofChristologicalviews thatportrayJesusasanangeloranangel-likebeing,NewTestamentscholarCharlesGieschen,helpfullydefinestheJewishnotionofanangelas“aspiritorheavenlybeingwhomediatesbetweenthehumananddivinerealms.”2OnceJesuswasthoughttobeexaltedtoheaven,hewasquicklyseen,bysomeofhisfollowers,tobethiskindofheavenlymediator,onewhoobedientlydidGod’swillwhilehewashereonearth.Fromthere,itwasaverysmallstep to thinking thatJesuswas thiskindofbeingbynature,notsimplybecauseofhisexaltation.JesuswasnotonlytheSonofGod,theLord,theSonofMan,thecomingmessiah;hewastheonewhomediatesGod’swillonearthasaheavenly,angelicbeing.Infact,itcametobethoughtthathehadalwaysbeenthatkindofbeing.

IfJesuswastheonewhorepresentedGodonearthinhumanform,hequitelikelyhadalwaysbeenthatone.Hewas,inotherwords,thechiefangelofGod,knownintheBibleastheAngeloftheLord.ThisisthefigurewhoappearedtoHagar,andAbraham,andMoses,whoissometimesactuallycalled“God”intheHebrewBible.IfJesusisinfactthisone,thenheisapreexistentdivinebeingwhocametoearthforalongerperiodoftime,duringhislife;hefullyrepresentedGodonearth;heinfactcanbecalledGod.ExaltationChristologiesbecametransformedinto incarnationChristologiesassoonasbelieversinJesuscametoseehimasanangelicbeingwhoperformedGod’sworkhereonearth.3

TocallJesustheAngeloftheLordistomakeastartlinglyexaltedclaimabouthim.IntheHebrew

Bible,thisfigureappearstoGod’speopleasGod’srepresentative,andheisinfactcalledGod.Andasitturnsout,asrecentresearchhasshown,thereareclearindicationsintheNewTestamentthattheearly followers of Jesus understood him in this fashion. Jesus was thought of as an angel, or anangel-like being, or even the Angel of the Lord—in any event, a superhuman divine being whoexistedbeforehisbirthandbecamehumanforthesalvationofthehumanrace.This,inanutshell,isthe incarnationChristologyofseveralNewTestamentauthors.LaterauthorswentevenfurtherandmaintainedthatJesuswasnotmerelyanangel—eventhechiefangel—butwasasuperiorbeing:hewasGodhimselfcometoearth.

IncarnationChristologyinPaulIHAVEREAD,PONDERED,researched,taught,andwrittenaboutthewritingsofPaulforfortyyears,butuntilrecentlytherewasonekeyaspectofhistheologyIcouldneverquitegetmymindaround.Ihadthe hardest time understanding how, exactly, Paul viewed Christ. Some aspects of Paul’sChristologicalteachinghavebeencleartomefordecades—especiallyhisteachingthatitwasJesus’sdeathandresurrectionthatmakesapersonrightwithGod,rather thanfollowingthedictatesof theJewishlaw.ButwhodidPaulthinkChristwas?

OnereasonformyperplexitywasthatPaulishighlyallusiveinwhathesays.HedoesnotspelloutinsystematicdetailhisviewsofChrist.AnotherreasonwasthatinsomepassagesPaulseemstoaffirmaviewofChristthat,untilrecently,IthoughtcouldnotpossiblyexistasearlyasPaul’sletters,whichareourfirstChristianwritingstosurvive.HowcouldPaulembrace“higher”viewsofChristthanthosefoundinlaterwritingssuchasMatthew,Mark,andLuke?Didn’tChristologydevelopfroma “low” Christology to a “high” Christology over time? And if so, shouldn’t the views of theSynopticGospelsbe“higher”thantheviewsofPaul?Butthey’renot!Theyare“lower.”AndIsimplydidnotgetit,forthelongesttime.

But now I do. It is not a question of “higher” or “lower.” The Synoptics simply accept aChristological view that is different from Paul’s. They hold to exaltation Christologies, and PaulholdstoanincarnationChristology.That,innosmallmeasure,isbecausePaulunderstoodChristtobeanangelwhobecameahuman.

ChristasanAngelinPaulManypeoplenodoubthave the sameexperience Idoonoccasion,of readingsomethingoverandoverandnothaving it register. Ihave readPaul’s letter to theGalatianshundredsof times inbothEnglishandGreek.But theclear importofwhathe says inGalatians4:14 simplynever registeredwithme,until,frankly,afewmonthsago.InthisversePaulcallsChristanangel.Thereasonitneverregisteredwithmeisthatthestatementisabitobscure,andIhadalwaysinterpreteditinanalternativeway.Thankstotheworkofotherscholars,Inowseetheerrorofmyways.4

Inthecontextoftheverse,PaulisremindingtheGalatiansofhowtheyfirstreceivedhimwhenhewas ill in theirmidst and they helped restore him to health. Paulwrites: “Even thoughmy bodilyconditionwasa test foryou,youdidnotmockordespiseme,butyoureceivedmeasanangelofGod,asJesusChrist.”

IhadalwaysreadtheversetosaythattheGalatianshadreceivedPaulinhisinfirmstatethewaytheywouldhavereceivedanangelicvisitor,orevenChristhimself.Infact,however,thegrammarof

theGreek suggests something quite different.AsCharlesGieschen has argued, and has now beenaffirmedinabookonChristasanangelbyNewTestamentspecialistSusanGarrett,theverseisnotsayingthattheGalatiansreceivedPaulasanangelorasChrist;itissayingthattheyreceivedhimastheywouldanangel,suchasChrist.5Byclearimplication,then,Christisanangel.

ThereasonforreadingtheversethiswayhastodowiththeGreekgrammar.WhenPaulusestheconstruction“butas...as,”heisnotcontrastingtwothings;heisstatingthatthetwothingsarethesamething.WeknowthisbecausePaulusesthisgrammaticalconstructioninacoupleofotherplacesinhiswritings, and themeaning in thosecases isunambiguous.For example, in1Corinthians3:1Paul says: “Brothers, I was not able to speak to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, asinfants inChrist.”The lastbit“butas . . . as” indicates two identifying featuresof the recipientsofPaul’s letter: they are fleshly people and they are infants in Christ. These are not two contrastingstatements;theymodifyeachother.ThesamecanbesaidofPaul’scommentsin2Corinthians2:17,whichalsohasthisgrammaticalfeature.

ButthismeansthatinGalatians4:14PaulisnotcontrastingChristwithanangel;heisequatinghim with an angel. Garrett goes a step further and argues that Galatians 4:14 indicates that Paul“identifies[JesusChrist]withGod’schiefangel.”6

If this is the case, thenvirtually everythingPaul says aboutChrist throughouthis lettersmakesperfectsense.AstheAngeloftheLord,Christisapreexistentbeingwhoisdivine;hecanbecalledGod;andheisGod’smanifestationonearthinhumanflesh.PaulsaysallthesethingsaboutChrist,and innopassagemorestrikingly than inPhilippians2:6–11,apassage that scholarsoftencall the“PhilippiansHymn” or the “ChristHymnof Philippians,” since it iswidely thought to embody anearlyhymnorpoemdevotedtocelebratingChristandhisincarnation.

MyfriendCharlesCosgrove,alifelongscholarofPaulwhoisalsooneoftheworld’sexpertsonmusicintheearlyChristianworld,hasconvincedmethatthepassagecouldnothavebeenanactualhymnthatwassung,since itdoesnotscanproperly,asamusicalpiece—that is, itdoesnothavearhythmicandmetricalstructure—in theGreek.Andso itmaybeapoemorevenakindofexaltedprose composition. Butwhat is clear is that it is an elevated reflection on Christ coming into theworld(fromheaven)forthesakeofothersandbeingglorifiedbyGodasaresult.AnditappearstobeapassagePaulisquoting,onewithwhichthePhilippiansmaywellhavealreadybeenfamiliar.Inotherwords,itisanotherpre-Paulinetradition.7

TheChristPoemofPhilippians2IstartmydiscussionoftheChristpoem,asIcallit,byquotingitatlengthinpoeticlines(thelinesworkdifferentlyinGreekthaninEnglish,butthebasicideaisthesame).8PaulintroducesthepoembytellingthePhilippiansthattheyshould“havethesamemind”inthemselvesthatwasalsoin“ChristJesus”(2:5).Andthencomesthepoem:

Who,althoughhewasintheformofGodDidnotregardbeingequalwithGodSomethingtobegraspedafter.

ButheemptiedhimselfTakingontheformofaslave,Andcominginthelikenessofhumans.

AndbeingfoundinappearanceasahumanHehumbledhimselfBecomingobedientuntodeath—evendeathonacross.

ThereforeGodhighlyexaltedhimAndbestowedonhimthenameThatisaboveeveryname,

ThatatthenameofJesusEverykneeshouldbowOfthoseinheaven,andonearth,andundertheearth.

AndeverytongueconfessThatJesusChristisLordTothegloryofGodtheFather.

Itisdifficulttodojusticetothistheologicallyrichpoeminjustafewpages;scholarshavewrittenentirebooksonit.9Butseveralpointsareparticularlygermaneformypurposes.

ThePhilippiansPoemasaPre-PaulineTraditionThefirstthingtostressisthatthepassagedoesindeedappeartobepoetic.Scholarshavesetoutthepoeticlinesindifferentways.IntheoriginalGreek,ofcourse,poetrywasnotindentedonthepageorindicated inanyparticularway—theGreekmanuscriptsof thebookofPhilippianssimplygive thepassagelikeeveryotherpassage,onelineandonewordatatime.Butthelinesdomakesense—evenbettersense—whensetoutpoetically.ThestructureIhaveadoptedhereiscommonamongscholarlyanalysesof thepassage: thepoemhas twohalves; eachhalf has three stanzas; and each stanzahasthreelines.Thefirsthalfbeginsbyidentifyingthesubjectofthepoem,“Who”(inreferencebacktoChristJesus),andthesecondhalfbeginswiththewordtherefore.Intermsofitsoverallmeaning,thefirst half talks about the “condescension” ofChrist, that is, howhe came down from the heavenlyrealm to become human in order to die in obedience toGod; and the second half talks about his“exaltation,”thatis,howGodthenraisedhimtoanevenhigherlevelandstatusthanhehadbefore,asarewardforhishumbleobedience.

AsIhavesaid,scholarshavelongconsideredthepassagetobeapre-PaulinetraditionthatPaulincludeshere inhis letter to thePhilippians.It isnotsimplysomethingPaulcomposedonthespot,whilewritinghisletter.Thereareseveralreasonsforthinkingthis.Foronething,thepassagedoesappeartobeaself-containedunitthatispoeticratherthanproselikeinitscomposition.Moreover,anumber of words—including some of the key words—occur in this passage but nowhere else inPaul’s letters. This includes theword form (used twice: form ofGod and form of a slave) and thephrase grasped after. The absence of such important words in Paul’s writings suggests that he isquotingapassagethatsomeoneelsewrote,earlier.

Confirmation for this view comes from the related fact that several of the key concepts in thepassage cannot be found elsewhere in Paul’s writings. Again, this includes some of the centralconceptsofthepassage:thatJesuswasinGod’sformbeforehebecameahuman;thathehadopentohimthepossibilityofgraspingafterdivineequalitybeforecomingtobehuman;andthathebecamehumanby“emptyinghimself.”This last idea isusually interpreted tomean thatChristgaveup theexaltedprerogativesthatwerehisasadivinebeinginordertobecomeahuman.

OnefinalargumentthatPaulisherequotingapreexistingtraditionthathadbeenincirculationforawhileisalittletrickiertoexplain.Itisthefactthatpartofthepoemdoesnotseemtofititscontextin the letter to the Philippians very well. At this point in the letter, Paul is telling his PhilippianChristian converts that they are to act unselfishly by treating other people better than they treatthemselves. In the verse before this, he has said that they should not look out only for their owninterests,butevenmorefortheinterestsofothers.Thenhequotesthispassageinordertoshowthat

thisisinfactwhatChristdid,givingupwhatwasrightfullyhis(the“formofGod”)inordertoserveothers(takingthe“formofaslave”)andbeingobedienttoGodtothepointofdyingforothers.

TheproblemisthatthesecondhalfoftheChristpoem(vv.9–11)doesnotatallconveythislesson,and if taken seriously, itmay seem to run counter to it. For according to these three stanzas,Godrewarded Jesus abundantly for his temporary condescension to become a human and to die. Godexalted him evenhigher thanhewas before (that’swhat theGreekverb “highly exalted” seems toimply,asdo theverses that follow),makinghim theLordofall, towhomall livingbeingswouldofferconfessionandworship.

ButtheideaofChrist’seventualexaltationdoesnotfitthepurposebehindPaul’squotationofthepoem,sinceifsomeoneishumblyobedientbecauseofwhatheorshewilleventuallygetoutofit,thatissimplyanotherwayofdoingthingsoutofself-interest.Andthewholepointofthepassageisthatpeopleshouldnotactoutofself-interest,butselflessly,forthesakeofothers.

Sincethesecondhalfofthepoemdoesnot“work”verywellinthecontext,itisalmostcertainlythe case that this was indeed a preexistent poem that was familiar to Paul and, probably, to thePhilippiansaswell.Paulquotestheentirepoembecauseitisfamiliartohisreadersandconveysthepointthathewantstoconvey—thattheyshouldimitateChrist’sexampleingivingthemselvesupforothers—eventhoughthesecondhalfcouldbeinterpretedtoundercutthispoint.

These, then, are some of the reasons that scholars have thought that Paul probably did notcompose this poemhimselfwhilewriting to thePhilippians. It is a pre-Pauline tradition.Youmayhavenoticedthatonelineislongerthantheothersinthepoem:“obedientuntodeath—evendeathonacross.”ItisevenlongerintheGreek.ScholarsfrequentlythinkthatPauladdedthewords“evendeathonacross,”sinceforhimitwaspreciselythecrucifixionofJesusthatwassoimportant.

InhisfirstlettertotheCorinthians,Paulremindshisreadersthatwhenhewasfirstwiththem—trying to convert them from worshiping idols to become followers of the God of Israel and hismessiah,Jesus—hismessagewasallabout thecrossofJesus:“ForIdecidednot toknowanythingamongyouexceptJesusChrist,andthisoneascrucified”(1Cor.2:2).InhislettertotheGalatians,hestresses that itwas specificallyadeathbycrucifixion thatmattered for salvation. If Jesushadbeenstoned to death, for example, or strangled, that would have been one thing. But because he wascrucified,inparticular,hewasabletobearthe“curse”ofsinthatotherpeopledeserved.Andthatisbecause thescriptures indicate thatanyonewho“hangsona tree” iscursedbyGod(Gal.3:10–13).ThisisareferencetothelawofMoses,Deuteronomy21:23,whichstates:“cursediseveryonewhohangsonatree.”Initsoriginalcontexttheversemeantthatanyonewhohadbeenexecutedandlefttorot on a tree obviously stood under God’s curse. For Paul, since Jesus died by being nailed to a“tree”—that is, crucified on a stake ofwood—he boreGod’s curse. Since he did not deserve thiscurse,hemusthavebornethecursethatwasowedtoothers.SoitwasofutmostimportancetoPaulnotjustthatJesusdied,butthathediedbybeingcrucified.

The linesof theChristpoem inPhilippians2“work”somewhatbetterwithout thewords“evendeathonacross,”suggestingthatPauladdedthesewordstothepoeminordertomakethemconformevenmoreclosely tohisown theologicalunderstandingof Jesus’sdeath. If this is thecase, it alsosuggeststhatPaulwasnottheoriginalauthorofthepoembutthatheinheriteditfromtraditionandquoteditherebecauseitsuitedhispurposes.

ByquotingthepoemPaulobviouslyisindicatingthatheagreeswithitsteachingaboutChrist.Butwhatisthatteachingexactly?IarguebelowthatthispoempresentsanincarnationalunderstandingofChrist—thathewasapreexistentdivinebeing, anangelofGod,whocame toearthoutofhumble

obedienceandwhomGodrewardedbyexaltinghimtoanevenhigherlevelofdivinityasaresult.ButbeforeembarkingonthisinterpretationIshouldpointoutthatsomescholarshavenotseenthispoemasembracinganincarnationaltheologyatall.

TheChristPoemandAdamSome scholars have had real difficulty imagining that a poem existing before Paul’s letter to thePhilippians—apoemwhosecompositionmust thereforedateasearlyas the40sCE—could alreadycelebrate an incarnational understanding of Christ. That seems rather early for such a “high”Christology.Asawayofpartlyresolvingthisproblem,analternativeexplanationhasbeenproposed.Inthisalternativeinterpretation,thebeginningofthepoemdoesnotrepresentChristasapreexistentdivinebeing.Itpresentshimasafullyhumanbeing.Infact, itpresentshimasahumanwhowasakindof“secondAdam,”asecondappearance,inasense,ofthefatherofthehumanrace.10

Accordingtothisinterpretation,whenthepoemindicatesthatChristwasinthe“formofGod,”itisnotsuggestingsomekindofpreexistentstateinheaven.HewasinsteadlikeAdam,whowasmadein the“imageofGod.” In thisunderstanding, thewords imageand form are synonyms.WhenGodmadeAdamandEve,hemadetheminhisown“image”(Gen.1:27).ButeventhoughAdamandEvewere inGod’s image, theyobviouslywerenot equalwithGod—theywerehis creations.AndGodgavethemonecommandmentaboutwhattheywerenottodo:theywerenottoeat“ofthetreeoftheknowledgeofgoodandevil.”Iftheyatethatfruit(itisnotcalledanapple,bytheway),theywoulddie(Gen.2:16–17).

Andwhat happened? The serpent—which is not called Satan inGenesis; instead it is an actualsnake (which originally walked on legs, apparently)—tempted Eve by telling her that eating theforbiddenfruitwouldnotcausethemtodiebutwouldmakethem“belikeGod,knowinggoodandevil”(Gen.3:5).AndsoEveatethefruit,gavesometoherhusband,Adam,andhetooate.Theireyeswerethen“opened,”andtheyrealizedtheywerenaked.Theywerenolongerinnocentbutcouldanddidmakemoral judgments. And they eventually died, as did all of their children and descendants(withtwoexceptions:EnochandElijah).

InPaul’slettershesometimesspeaksofChristasa“secondAdam.”UnlikethefirstsinfulAdam,Christwas the“perfectman,”who reversed thecourseofhumanaffairsbroughtaboutby the firstAdam.ThefirstAdambroughtsinintotheworld,andChristremovedthecurseofsin;justasAdambroughtdeath toallhisdescendants,so tooChristbrought life toallwhobelieved inhim.AsPaulsaysinRomans5:“Forjustasthetransgressionthroughonemancameasjudgmentforallpeople,soalsotherighteousnessthatcamefromonemanleadstojustificationandlifeforeveryone;forjustasthemanyweremadesinnersthroughthedisobedienceoftheoneperson,soalsothemanyweremaderighteousbytheobedienceofone”(vv.18–19).

Paul, then,sawChristasakindofsecondAdamwhoreversedthesin,condemnation,anddeathbrought about by the first Adam. Could this understanding be applied to the Christ poem ofPhilippians? Some scholars have argued so. In their view, as I indicated, just asAdamwas in the“imageofGod,”sotoowasChristinthe“formofGod.”ButAdamreactedtothatstatebysinning.Christreactedbyhumbleobedience.Adamsinnedbecausehewantedtobe“likeGod.”Christontheotherhand“didnot regardbeingequalwithGod /Something tobegraspedafter.”Andso, justasAdambroughtdeathintotheworldbyhisdisobedience,Christbroughtthepossibilityoflifeintotheworldbyhisobedience.ThisisshownaboveallbythefactthatGod“highlyexalted”JesusandmadehimtheLordofall.

Inshort,accordingtothisinterpretation,Christ isnotportrayedasapreexistentdivinebeinginthePhilippians poem.He is human, like other humans.He is in the imageofAdam,who is in theimageofGod.ButhereversesAdam’ssinbyhisobedience,andonlythenisheexaltedtoadivinelevel.

Ihavelongthoughtthatthiswasanintriguinginterpretationofthepassage,andformanyyearsIwisheditwerecorrect.ThatwouldhelpsolvetheproblemIhadinunderstandingPaul’sChristology.ButI’mafraidI’veneverbeenconvincedbyit—evenwhenIwantedtobe—forthreereasons.First,ifPaul(ortheauthorofthepoem)reallywantedhisreadertomaketheconnectionbetweenJesusandAdam,hesurelywouldhavedonesomoreexplicitly.EvenifhechosenottocallAdambyname,ortocallJesusthesecondAdam,hecouldhavemadeverbalallusionstothestoryofAdam(andEve)moreobvious.Inparticular,ratherthansayingthatChristwas“intheformofGod,”hewouldhavesaidthatChristwas“intheimageofGod.”ThatisthewordusedinGenesis,anditwouldhavebeenquitesimplefortheauthortouseithereinthepoemifhewantedhisreadertothinkofGenesis.

Second,intheAdamandEvestoryinGenesis,itisnotAdamwhowants“tobelikeGod”—itisEve.Adameatsthefruitonlywhenshegivesittohim,andwearenottoldwhyhedoesso.Butthismeansinhisdesirenot tobeequalwithGod,ChristwouldbethecounternottoAdam,buttoEve.NowhereinhiswritingsdoesPaulmakeaconnectionbetweenChristandEve.

Third, and possiblymost important, fromother passages in Paul it does indeed appear that heunderstandsChristtohavebeenapreexistentdivinebeing.Oneexamplecomesfromaverypeculiarpassagein1Corinthians,inwhichPaulistalkingabouthowthechildrenofIsrael,aftertheyescapedfromEgyptunderMoses,werefedwhiletheyspentsomanyyearsinthewilderness(asrecountedinthebooksofExodusandNumbersintheHebrewBible).AccordingtoPaul,theIsraeliteshadenoughtodrinkbecausetherockthatMosesstruckinordermiraculouslytobringforthwater(Num.20:11)followedthemaroundinthewilderness.Wherevertheywent,thewater-providingrockwent.Infact,Paulsays,“therockwasChrist”(1Cor.10:4).JustasChristprovideslifetopeopletodaywhentheybelieveinhim,sotooheprovidedlifetotheIsraelitesinthewilderness.Thatwouldnothavebeenpossible,ofcourse,unlessheexistedatthetime.AndsoforPaul,Christwasapreexistentbeingwhowasoccasionallymanifestonearth.

Ortakeanotherpassage,oneinwhichPaulactuallydoesspeakofChristasasecondAdam.In1Corinthians,PaulcontrastsChrist’splaceoforiginwiththatofAdam:“Thefirstmanwasfromtheearth,andwasmadeofdust;thesecondmanisfromheaven”(15:47).WhatmattershereispreciselythedifferencebetweenAdamandChrist.Adamcameintobeinginthisworld;Christexistedbeforehecameintothisworld.Hewasfromheaven.

Andso, theinterpretationofthePhilippianspoemthat takesitasanindicationthatChristwasakind of “perfectAdam” does notwork, on one hand, because the passage has features that do notmake sense given this interpretation. And on the other hand, this interpretation is completelyunnecessary. It does not solve the problem of an incarnational Christology—because Paul clearlysays in other passages that Jesus was indeed a preexistent divine beingwho came into the world.That’swhatthispoemteachesaswell.

TheChristPoemandIncarnationalChristologyLotsofother thingscanbesaidabout thisamazingpassage.Amongscholars it isoneof themostdiscussed, argued over, and commented upon passages in the New Testament. If the majority ofscholars are correct in their opinion that it embodies an incarnational Christology, then the basic

perspectiveonChristthatitpaintsisclear:Christwasapreexistentbeingwhochosetocomeinthe“likeness”ofhumanflesh,who,becausehehumbledhimselftothepointofdeath,waselevatedtoanevenhigherstatusthanhehadbeforeandwasmadetheLordofall.ThisviewofChristmakessenseif we think of him as existing before his birth as an angelic being who abandoned his heavenlyexistencetocometoearthtofulfillGod’swillbydyingforothers.

IwanttostressthatChristappearstobeportrayedhere,inhispreexistentstate,asadivinebeing,anangel—butnotasGodAlmighty.HeisnottheFatherhimself,sinceitistheFatherwhoexaltshim.Andheisnot—mostdefinitelynot—“equal”withGodbeforehebecomeshuman.

ThereareseveralreasonsforthinkingthathewasnotyetGod’sequalinhispreexistentstate.Thefirstcomesinthefirstpartofthepoem,whereitsaysthatChristdidnotregardbeingequalwithGod“somethingtobegraspedafter.”Interpretersofthispassagehavelongdebatedtheprecisenuanceofthesewords.DotheymeanthathealreadyhadequalitywithGodandthathedidnotclutchontothisequalityassomethingtoretain,butinsteadbecamehuman?OrdotheymeanthathedidnotalreadyhaveequalitywithGodandchosenottograspforthatkindofequality,butinsteadbecamehuman?Itmakesabigdifference.

PartoftheproblemisthatthekeyGreekwordhere—theverbforgrasped—israreandcouldintheorybeused inboth senses.But in reality, theword (andwords related to it inGreek) is almostalwaysused to refer to somethingapersondoesn’thavebutgrasps for—likea thiefwhosnatchessomeone’spurse.TheGermanscholarSamuelVollenweiderhasshownthatthewordisusedthiswaywidely in a range of Jewish authors;moreover, it is theword used of human rulerswho becomearrogantandso try tomake themselvesmorehighandmighty(divine) than theyreallyare.11 Thisseemstobe,then,whatismeanthereinthePhilippianspoem.

A second reason for thinking that Jesuswasnot yetGod’s equal is that only this interpretationmakessenseofthesecondhalfofthepoem,inwhichGod“exalts”Christevenmore“highly”thanhewasbefore(whichistheprobablemeaningoftheverbItranslatedas“highlyexalted”inthepoem).IfChristwerealreadyequalwithGod,thenitwouldnothavebeenpossibleforhimtobeexaltedevenhigherthanthatafterhisactofobedience.WhatcouldbehigherthanequalitywithGod?Moreover,itwasonlyafterthishigherexaltationthatChristisgiven“thenamethatisaboveeveryname”andistobecometheobjectofworshipforalllivingbeings.Christmusthavebeenalowerdivinebeingbeforehehumbledhimselfbybecominghumananddying.Whenitsays, then,thathewas“intheformofGod,”itdoesnotmeanthathewastheequalofGodtheFather.Itmeanshewas“Godlike,”ordivine—likethechiefangel,theAngeloftheLord,asreferredtoinpassagesoftheHebrewBible.

ItseemsstrangetomanypeopletodaythatChristcouldbeadivinebeingyetnotbefullyequalwithGod.But it is important to rememberwhatwe found inChapter1.Ournotion that there isaninseparablechasmbetweenthedivineandhumanrealms,andthatthedivinerealmhasonlyonelevelor layer to it, is not the viewheld amongGreeks,Romans, and Jews in the ancientworld—or byChristians.Recall the inscription that I citedonpage39, about howCaesarAugustuswasdeclared“divine,”and ifheprovidedevenfurtherbenefits for thepeopleduringhis reign, theycoulddeemhimeven“moredivine.”Howcansomeonebecome“more”divine?Intheancientworld,theycould—becausedivinitywasacontinuum.SotooinJewishandChristiancircles.ForthePhilippianspoem,Christstartedoutasdivine,butathisexaltationhewasmadeeven“moredivine.”Infact,hewasmadeequalwithGod.

Thisisapointthatiswidelyagreeduponbyinterpreters,anditisbecauseofthewordingofthefinaltwostanzasofthepoem,vv.10–11.There,wearetoldthatGod“hyperexalted”Jesus,sothat“At

thenameofJesus/Everykneeshouldbow/Ofthoseinheaven,andonearth,andundertheearth./Andeverytongueconfess/ThatJesusChristisLord/TothegloryofGodtheFather.”Thecasualreadermaynot realize this,but these linesallude toapassage in theHebrewBible.Anda strikingpassageitis.AccordingtotheoriginalpassageasfoundinIsaiah45:22–23,itistoYahwehalone,theGodofIsrael,that“everykneeshallbow,andeverytongueconfess”:

TurntomeandbesavedAlltheendsoftheearth!ForIamGod,andthereisnoother.

BymyselfIhavesworn,FrommymouthhasgoneforthinrighteousnessAwordthatshallnotreturn:

“Tomeeverykneeshallbow,Everytongueconfess.”

TheprophetIsaiahisquiteexplicit.ThereisonlyoneGod,noother.ThatGodisYahweh.12ThatGodhasswornthattonoothershalleverykneebowandeverytonguemakeconfession.YetinthePhilippianspoem, it is not toGod theFather—apart fromwhom,according to Isaiah, “there isnoother”—buttotheexaltedJesusthatallkneeswillbowandtonguesconfess.JesushasbeengrantedthestatusandhonorandgloryoftheOneAlmightyGodhimself.

This interpretation of the Christ poem in Philippians shows that very early in the ChristianmovementthefollowersofJesusweremakingaudaciousclaimsabouthim.Hehadbeenexaltedtoequality with God, even though God himself had said that there was “no other” apart from him.Somehow,Christianswereimaginingthattherewasindeed“another.”AndthisotheronewasequalwithGod.ButitwasnotbecausehewasGod“bynature”—tousethelaterphilosophical/theologicaltermthatcametobeappliedtodiscussionsofChrist’sdeity.HewasGodbecauseGodhadmadehimso.ButhowcouldhebeGod, ifGodwasGod,and therewasonlyoneGod?ThisbecamethekeyquestionoftheChristologicaldebatesinlatertimes,aswewillsee.Atthisstage,allwecansayisthatearlyChristianswerenotbotheredenoughbythisdilemma,orthisparadox,tohavewrittenanythingaboutit,sowedon’tknowexactlyhowtheydealtwithit.

OnefinalpointtomakeaboutthePhilippianspoemmayhaveoccurredtoyoualready.IhavebeencallingtheChristologythatitembraces“incarnational,”sinceitportraysJesusasapreexistentdivinebeingwhobecomeshuman.Butthereisobviouslyan“exaltation”elementinthepoemaswell,sinceatJesus’sresurrectionGodexaltedhimtoanevenhigherstatethanhehadbefore.Inasense, then,this poem provides us with a transitional Christology that combines an incarnation view with anexaltationview.LaterauthorswillmoveevenfurtherawayfromanexaltationChristology,suchthatChristwillcometobeportrayedasbeingequalwithGodevenbeforehisappearanceintheworld—in fact, as equal withGod for all time. But this is not the view of the Philippians poem. For thisbeautiful passage, as quoted by and presumably believed by Paul, Christ was indeed a preexistentdivinebeing.Buthewasanangeloranangel-likebeing,whoonlyafterhisactofobediencetothepointofdeathwasmadeGod’sequal.

OtherPassagesinPaulTheincarnationalChristologythatliesbehindthePhilippianshymncanbeseeninotherpassagesofPaul’s lettersaswell. Ihavealreadysaid thatPaulunderstoodChrist tobe the“rock”thatprovidedlife-givingwatertotheIsraelitesinthewilderness(1Cor.10:4)andpointedoutthatPaulstatedthat

Christ, unlike the first Adam, came from “heaven” (1 Cor. 15:47). When Paul talks about God“sending”hisson,heappearsnottobespeakingonlymetaphorically(likeJohntheBaptistissaidtohave been “sent” fromGod in John 1:6, for example); instead,God actually sent Christ from theheavenly realm.Asheput it in the letter to theRomans, “Forwhat the lawcouldnotdo,Goddid,sending his ownSon in the likeness of sinful flesh” (8:3). It is interesting that Paul uses this termlikeness—just as the Philippians poemdidwhen it spoke ofChrist coming in the “appearance” ofhumans.ItisthesameGreekwordinbothplaces.DidPaulwanttoavoidsayingthatChristactuallybecamehuman,butthathecameonlyinahuman“likeness”?Itishardtosay.

ButitisclearthatPauldoesnotbelieveChristjustappearedoutofnowhere,thewayangelsseemtodointheHebrewBible.OneoftheversesinPaulthatlongpuzzledmewasGalatians4:4,inwhichPaulwrites,“Whenthefullnessoftimecame,Godsenthisson,bornfromawoman,bornunderthelaw.” I alwayswonderedwhyPaulwould indicate thatChrist had been born from awoman.Whatother option is there, exactly? But the statement makes sense if Paul believed that Christ was apreexistentangelicbeing.Inthatcase,itisimportanttopointoutthatJesuswasborninahumanway:hedidnotsimplyappearastheAngeloftheLorddidtoHagar,Abraham,andMoses.Hereinthelastdaysheactuallywasborninthelikenessofhumanflesh,asachild.

Paul says evenmore exalted things about Christ. In Chapter 2, we saw that some Jewish textsunderstoodGod’sWisdomtobeahypostasisofGod—anaspectorcharacteristicofGodthattookonits own form of existence. Wisdom was the agent through which God created all things (as inProverbs8),andsince itwasGod’sWisdominparticular, itwasbothGodandakindof imageofGod.As theWisdom of Solomon expressed it,Wisdom is “a pure emanation of the glory of theAlmighty...forsheisareflectionofeternallight,aspotlessmirroroftheworkingofGod,andanimageofhisgoodness”(7:25–26).Moreover,wesawthatWisdomcouldbeseenastheAngeloftheLord.

Jesus,forPaul,wastheAngeloftheLord.AndsohetoowasGod’sWisdom,beforecomingintothisworld.ThusPaulcanspeakof“thegloryofChrist,whoisthelikenessofGod”(2Cor.4:4).Evenmorestriking,Christcanbedescribedastheagentofcreation:

ForusthereisoneGod,theFather,fromwhomareallthingsandforwhomweexist,

andoneLord,JesusChrist,throughwhomareallthingsandthroughwhomweexist.(1Cor.8:6)

This verse may well incorporate another pre-Pauline creed of some kind, as it divides itselfneatly,ascanbeseen, into twoparts,with twolineseach.Thefirstpart isaconfessionofGodtheFather,and thesecondaconfessionof JesusChrist. It is“through”Christ thatall thingscome intobeingandthatbelieversthemselvesexist.Thissoundsverymuchlikewhatnon-ChristianJewishtextsoccasionallysayaboutGod’sWisdom.AndGod’sWisdomwas itselfunderstood tobeGod,aswehaveseen.

SotooJesusinPaul.OneofthemostdebatedversesinthePaulinelettersisRomans9:5.Scholarsdispute how the verse is to be translated.What is clear is thatPaul is talking about the advantagesgiventotheIsraelites,andheindicatesthatthe“fathers”(thatis,theJewishpatriarchs)belongtotheIsraelites,and“fromthemistheChristaccordingtotheflesh,theonewhoisGodoverall,blessedforever,amen.”Here,Christis“Godoverall.”Thisisaveryexaltedview.

ButsometranslatorsprefernottotakethepassageasindicatingthatChristisGodanddosoby

claimingthatitshouldbetranslateddifferently,tosayfirstsomethingaboutChristandthen,second,togiveablessingtoGod.Theytranslatetheverselikethis:“fromthemistheChristaccordingtotheflesh.May theGodwho isoverallbeblessed forever,amen.”The issuesof translationarehighlycomplex,anddifferentscholarshavedifferentopinions.Thematteriscrucial.Ifthefirstversioniscorrect,thenitistheoneplaceinallofPaul’sletterswhereheexplicitlycallsJesusGod.

Butis itcorrect?Myviewformanyyearswasthat thesecondtranslationwastherightoneandthatthepassagedoesnotcallJesusGod.Mymainreasonforthinkingso,though,wasthatIdidnotthinkthatPaulevercalledJesusGodanywhereelse,soheprobablywouldn’tdosohere.Butthat,ofcourse, iscircular reasoning,and I think the first translationmakes thebest senseof theGreek,asotherscholarshavevigorouslyargued.13ItisworthstressingthatPauldoesindeedspeakaboutJesusasGod, aswehave seen.This does notmean thatChrist isGod theFatherAlmighty. Paul clearlythought JesuswasGod in a certain sense—buthedoesnot think thathewas theFather.Hewasanangelic,divinebeingbeforecomingintotheworld;hewastheAngeloftheLord;hewaseventuallyexaltedtobeequalwithGodandworthyofallofGod’shonorandworship.AndsoInowhavenotrouble recognizing that in fact Paul could indeed flat-out call Jesus God, as he appears to do inRomans9:5.

IfsomeoneasearlyintheChristiantraditionasPaulcanseeChristasanincarnatedivinebeing,itisnosurprisethatthesameviewemergeslaterinthetradition.NowheredoesitemergemoreclearlyorforcefullythanintheGospelofJohn.

IncarnationChristologyinJohnIWAS IN GRADUATE school when I first came to realize just how different John is from the otherGospels.Beforethat,whenIwasincollege,IreadtheGospelsasiftheywereallsayingbasicallythesamething.Sure,theremayhavebeendifferentemphaseshereorthere,butonthewhole,Ithought,theyhadthesamebasicviewsaboutmosteverything.

Inmymaster ’s degree program I decided to do a kind of thought experiment by reading onlyMatthew, Mark, and Luke (not John). I did this for three years. At the end of my third year, tocompletetheexperiment,IsatdowntoreadJohn.InGreek.Inonesitting.Itwasarevelation.Havinggrownaccustomedtothelanguage,style,themes,stories,andperspectivesoftheSynopticGospels,Isimplycouldn’tbelievehowdifferentJohnwas.Ineveryrespect.WithJohnwearedealingnotjustwithadifferentauthor,butwithanentirelydifferentworld.Amongotherthings,inthisGospeltherearenotsimplyallusionstoJesus’sdivinepowerandauthority.TherearebaldstatementsthatequateJesuswithGodandsaythathewasapreexistentdivinebeingwhocameintotheworld.ThisviewisnotsimplylikePaul’s,inwhichJesuswassomekindofangelwhothencametobeexaltedtoahigherpositionofdeity.ForJohn,JesuswasequalwithGodandevensharedhisnameandhisgloryinhispreincarnatestate.Tousetheolder terminology(whichIfavoredbackthen), thiswasanextremelyhighChristology.

Alreadyatthatearlypointinmyresearchcareer,IhadreasonstodoubtthatthisChristologywasthe earliest one known among Jesus’s followers. On one hand, it was not the Christology of theearlierGospels—andthatitselfwasobviouslyhighlysignificant.IfJesusreallywereequalwithGodfrom “the beginning,” before he came to earth, and he knew it, then surely the Synoptic Gospelswouldhavementionedthisatsomepoint.Wouldn’tthatbethemostimportantthingabouthim?Butno,inMatthew,Mark,andLukehedoesnottalkabouthimselfinthisway—nordoeshedosointheir

sources(Q,M,andL).Ontheotherhand,IwastakenabackwhenIrealizedthatalltheperspectivesinJohn’sGospelare

shared by Jesus himself and the author.Letme explain.Whoeverwrote theGospel of John (we’llcontinue to call him John, thoughwe don’t knowwho he reallywas)must have been a Christianliving sixtyyearsor so after Jesus, in adifferentpart of theworld, in adifferent cultural context,speakingadifferentlanguage—GreekratherthanAramaic—andwithacompletelydifferentlevelofeducation.YettherearepassagesinJohninwhichthenarratorsoundsjustlikeJesus,somuchsothatyou cannot tell, in places, who is doing the talking.14 Jesus sounds just like the narrator and thenarrator sounds just like Jesus.But how can that be, if Jesuswas from a different time and place,livinginadifferentculture,speakingadifferentlanguage,andwithouthavingtheadvantagesofwhatwe todaywould call a higher education?And so I realizedwith breathtaking suddennesswhat theanswerwas.ItisbecauseinJohn’sGospelwearenothearingtwovoices—thevoiceofJesusandthevoice of the narrator. We are hearing one voice. The author is speaking for himself and he isspeakingforJesus.ThesearenotJesus’swords;theyareJohn’swordsplacedonJesus’slips.

ElevatedTeachingsAboutJesusinJohnOneofthemoststrikingfeaturesofJohn’sGospelisitselevatedclaimsaboutJesus.Here,JesusisdecidedlyGodandisinfactequalwithGodtheFather—beforecomingintotheworld,whileintheworld,andafterheleavestheworld.Considerthefollowingpassages,whicharefoundonlyinJohnamongthefourGospels:

InthebeginningwastheWord,andtheWordwaswithGod,andtheWordwasGod...AndtheWordbecamefleshanddweltamongus,andwehavebeheldhisglory,gloryasoftheuniqueonebeforetheFather,fullofgraceandtruth.(1:1,14;laterthisWordmadefleshisnamedas“JesusChrist,”v.17)ButJesusansweredthem,“MyFatherisworkingstill,andIalsoamworking.”ThiswaswhytheJewssoughtallthemoretokillhim,becausenotonlywashebreakingtheSabbath,buthewasalsocallingGodhisownFather,therebymakinghimselfequaltoGod.(5:17–18)[Jesussaid:]“Verytruly,Itellyou,beforeAbrahamwas,Iam.”(8:58)[Jesussaid:]“IandtheFatherareone.”(10:30)Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, andwewill be satisfied.” Jesus said to him,“HaveIbeenwithyouallthistime,Philip,andyoustilldonotknowme?WhoeverhasseenmehasseentheFather.”(14:8–9)[JesusprayedtoGod:]“Iglorifiedyouonearthbyfinishingtheworkthatyougavemetodo.Sonow,Father,glorifymeinyourownpresencewith theglory thatIhadinyourpresencebeforetheworldexisted.”(17:4–5)[Jesusprayed:] “Father, Idesire that thosealso,whomyouhavegivenme,maybewithmewhere I am, to seemy glory, which you have givenme because you lovedme before thefoundationoftheworld.”(17:24).Thomasansweredhim,“MyLordandmyGod!”(20:28)

Ineedtobeclear:JesusisnotGodtheFatherinthisGospel.Hespendsallofchapter17prayingtohisFather,and,asIpointedoutearlier,heisnottalkingtohimself.Buthehasbeengivenglory

equaltothatofGodtheFather.Andhehadthatglorybeforehecameintotheworld.Whenheleavesthisworld,hereturnstotheglorythatwashisbefore.Tobesure,Jesuscomestobe“exalted”here—he several times talks about his crucifixion as being “lifted up”—a play onwords in reference tobeing“liftedontothecross”andbeing“exalted”uptoheavenasaresult.Buttheexaltationisnottoahigherstate thantheonehepreviouslypossessed,as inPaul.ForJohn,hewasalreadyboth“God”and “with God” in his preincarnate state as a divine being. Nowhere can this view be seen moreclearlythaninthefirsteighteenversesoftheGospel,frequentlycalledthePrologueofJohn.

ThePrologueofJohnIntheProloguewefindtheclearestexpressionintheNewTestamentofChristasapreexistentdivinebeing—theWord—whohasbecomeahuman.WehavealreadyseeninChapter2thatGod’sWord—orLogosinGreek—wassometimesunderstoodtobeadivinehypostasis,anaspectofGodthatcametobethoughtofasitsowndistinctbeing.SinceitwastheWordofGod,itwasanentitythatcouldbeimagined as being separate and distinct fromGod (just as thewords that I am typing come frominsidemyheadbutthentakeontheirownexistence).Atthesametime,sincethisWordwastheWordof“God,”itperfectlymanifestedthedivinebeingoftheFatherandforthatreasonwasitselfrightlycalled“God.”TheideaofthedivineLogoscouldbefoundnotonlyinJewishliterature,butalsoinGreek philosophical circles connectedwith bothStoicism andMiddle Platonism.All of thesemayhaveaffectedthemostpoeticandpowerfulexpressionoftheWordtocomedowntousfromearlyChristianliterature—thefirsteighteenversesofJohn.

ThePrologueasaPreliteraryPoemItiswidelyheldamongscholarsthatthePrologueisapreexistingpoemthattheauthorofJohnhasincorporatedintohiswork—possiblyinasecondedition.15Thisisbecauseithastheearmarksofapreliterarytraditionasaself-contained,poeticpieceandbecauseitskeyterm—theWord,orLogos—occursnowhereelse inreferencetoChrist in theentireGospel.If it isapreexistingpiece, thentheauthoroftheGospel—oritslatereditor—founditsChristologicalviewshighlycompatiblewithhisown,even if the termsused inexpressing thoseviewsweredifferent fromtheoneshecustomarilyused.AndsohebeganhisGospelnarrativewithit.16

Thepoeticcharacterof thepassagecanbeseen in itsuse, inplaces,ofwhat iscalledstaircaseparallelism,inwhichthefinalwordofonelineisalsothebeginningwordofthenextline.Andso,forexample,wehavethefollowing(keywordsareinitalics):

InthebeginningwastheWordAndtheWordwaswithGod.AndGodwastheWord.(John1:1)

Inhimwaslife,Andthelifewasthelightofhumans.Andthelightshinesinthedarkness.Andthedarknessdidnotovercomeit.(1:4–5)

Insertedintothepoeticpassageofvv.1–18aretwoproseadditions,whichdonotseemtofitwiththeflowofthepoem,whichisotherwiseallabouttheLogos;bothadditionsdealnotwithChrist,butwith John the Baptist as his forerunner (vv.6–8 and v.15). If you remove these verses, the poem

actuallyflowsbetter.Probably,theauthor(ortheeditor)whoaddedthepoeminthefirstplacemadetheseadditionshimself.

TheTeachingofthePrologueWithouttheadditionofthecommentsonJohntheBaptist,thepoemisallabouttheLogosofGodthatexistedwithGodinthebeginningandthatbecameahumaninJesusChrist.Christisnotnameduntilnear theend, inv.17.But there isnodoubt that thepoemisabouthim,as isclearonceyouread itthroughfromstarttofinish.Still,itisimportanttobepreciseinhowoneunderstandsthispoemanditspresentationofChrist.ThepoemisdecidedlynotsayingthatJesuspreexistedhisbirth—andthereisnothingabouthimbeingbornof avirginhere.Whatpreexistedwas theLogosofGod throughwhomGodmadetheuniverse.ItwasonlywhentheLogosbecameahumanbeingthatJesusChristcame intoexistence.SoJesusChrist is theLogos thathasbecomeahuman;but Jesusdidnotexistbeforethatincarnationhappened.ItwastheLogosthatexistedbefore.

QuiteelevatedthingsaresaidofthisLogos,theWord.TheverybeginningofthepoemquicklycallstomindthebeginningoftheBible,Genesis1:1.HereinJohnwearetold,“InthebeginningwastheWord,”andthatitwasthroughthisWordthat“allthingsweremade,”including“life”and“light.”HowcouldaJewishreadernotimmediatelythinkofthecreationstoryinGenesis?Genesisalsostartswith the words: “In the beginning”—the same Greek words later used in John. This opening ofGenesisisallaboutcreation.AndhowdoesGodcreatetheworldandallthatisinit?Byspeakingaword: “And God said, ‘Let there be light. And there was light.” It is God who creates light, andeventually,life,andhedoessowithhisword.NowintheProloguetoJohnwehaveareflectiononthatWordasakindofhypostasisofGod.

AsinotherJewishtexts,theWordisabeingseparatefromGod,andyetsinceitisGod’sword,hisownoutwardexpressionofhimself, it fullyrepresentswhohe is,anddoesnothingelse,andinthissenseit isitselfGod.SoJohntellsusthattheWordwasboth“withGod”and“wasGod.”ThisWordwas that which brought all life into existence and brought light out of darkness—just as inGenesis.

AcarefulreaderatthispointwillberemindedofwhatsomeJewishtextssayaboutWisdom,asthedivineagentthroughwhomGodcreatedtheworld,asinProverbs8.Thiscomparisonisindeedapt.AsThomasTobin,ascholarofancientJudaism,hassummarizedthematter,thefollowingthingsare said both about Wisdom in various non-Christian Jewish texts and about the Logos in theProloguetoJohn:17

Bothwereatthebeginning(John1:1;Prov.8:22–23).BothwerewithGod(John1:1;Prov.8:27–30;Wis.9:9).Bothweretheagentthroughwhomallthingsweremade(John1:3;Wis.7:22).Bothprovide“life”(John1:3–4;Prov.8:35;Wis.8:13).Bothprovide“light”(John1:4;Wis.6:12;8:26).Botharesuperiortodarkness(John1:5;Wis.7:29–30).Botharenottoberecognizedbythoseintheworld(John1:10;Bar.3:31).Bothhavedwelledamongpeopleintheworld(John1:11;Sir.24:10;Bar.3:37–4:1).BothhavebeenrejectedbythepeopleofGod(John1:11;Bar.3:12).Bothhavetabernacled(i.e.,dweltinatent)amongpeople(John1:14;Sir.24:8;Bar.3:38).

TheLogosintheChristpoemofthePrologueofJohn,then,isbeingunderstoodverymuchlikeWisdominotherJewishtexts.AsTobinpointsout,thethingssaidoftheLogoshereinJohnarealsoverysimilar to theportraitof theLogosfoundin thewritingsofPhilo.Inbothcases, theLogosisreminiscentofWisdom.Inboth,theLogosexistedwithGodbeforethecreation,“inthebeginning”;and in both, it is called “God.” For both, it is the instrument of creation and themeans bywhichpeoplebecomechildrenofGod.

No one should think that Philo, or the Jewish writings about Wisdom, are the actual literarysourceforthePrologue’spoeticcelebrationoftheLogos.MypointinsteadisthatwhatissaidabouttheLogoshereatthebeginningofJohnisverysimilartowhatJewishauthorsweresayingaboutbothLogosandWisdom.Thereisacrucialdifference,however.InJohn’sGospel—andonlythere,amongthe texts I have been considering—theLogos becomes a specific human being. JesusChrist is theincarnationoftheLogos.

AsIintimatedbefore,thePrologueisnotsayingthatJesuspreexisted,thathecreatedtheuniverse,thathebecameflesh.Instead,itissayingthattheLogosdidallthesethings.Beforeallelseexisted,itwaswithGod,andsinceitwasGod’sownLogos,inthatsenseitactuallywasGod.ItwasthroughtheLogosthattheuniverseandallthatwasinitwascreatedandgivenlife.AndthisLogosthenbecameahumanbeing:“AndtheWordbecamefleshanddweltamongus.”Thatin-fleshment,orincarnation,ofthe Logos is who Jesus Christ was.When the Logos became a human and dwelt among his ownpeople,hisownpeoplerejectedhim(John1:11).Butthosewhoreceivedhimweretheoneswhoweremade“thechildrenofGod”(1:12).Thesewerepeoplewhowerenotmerelybornintothisphysicalworld;theywerebornfromGod(1:13).ThatisbecausethisLogos-made-fleshistheuniqueSonofGod;heissuperioreventothegreatlawgiverMosessinceheistheonlyonewhohaseverdwelledwithGod—in his very bosom.And he is therefore the only onewho hasmade the Father known(1:17–18).

Inconsideringthefar-reachingimplicationsofthismagnificentincarnationChristology,thereisa cleardownside thatyoumayhavedetected just frommypreceding remarks. If theLogos-made-flesh is the only one who truly knew God and made him known—far more so than Moses thelawgiveroftheJews—andifthisonewhorevealedGodhasbeenrejectedbyhisownpeople,whatdoesthatsayabouttheJews?Accordingtothisview,theyhaveobviouslyrejectednotonlyJesus,buttheWordofGodwhowasGodhimself.Andbyrejecting“God”theLogos,have theynotalso,byimplication,rejectedGod?Thefar-reaching,andratherhorrific,implicationsofthisviewwillbethesubject of a later discussion in the epilogue. Some Christians came to argue that by refusing torecognizeJesus’strueidentity,theJewsrejectedtheirownGod.

One other point needs to be reemphasized at this stage however. If one uses the term highChristologytotalkaboutthiskindofincarnationalview,thePrologueofJohnwouldbepresentingaveryhighChristologyindeed—higherthanthateveninthePhilippianspoem.Fortheauthorofthatpoem, as for Paul himself, Christ was some kind of angelic being before becoming a human—probablythe“chiefangel”orthe“AngeloftheLord.”AndasaresultofhisobediencetoGoduntodeath,hewasgivenanevenmoreexaltedstateofbeingasonewhowasequaltoGodinhonorandstatusastheLordofall.ThisinitselfisaremarkablyexaltedviewofJesus,theruralpreacherfromGalileewhoproclaimedthecomingkingdomofGodandwho,havingendeduponthewrongsideofthe law,was crucified.But the Prologue of John has an evenmore elevated view ofChrist.Here,Christ is not an angel ofGod,whowas later “hyperexalted” or given a higher place than he hadbeforeheappearedonearth.Quitethecontrary,evenbeforeheappeared,hewastheLogosofGodhimself,abeingwhowasGod,theonethroughwhomtheentireuniversewascreated.

EventhoughthisviewofChristastheLogosmadefleshisnotfoundanywhereelseintheGospelofJohn,itsviewsareobviouslycloselyalignedwiththeChristologyoftheGospelotherwise.ThatiswhyChristcanmakehimself“equalwithGod”(John5:18);cansaythatheandtheFather“areone”(10:30);cantalkabout the“glory”hehadwiththeFatherbeforecomingintotheworld(17:4);cansaythatanyonewhohasseenhimhas“seentheFather”(14:9);andcanindicatethat“beforeAbrahamwas,Iam”(8:58).Thislastverseisespeciallyintriguing.Aswehaveseen,intheHebrewBiblewhenMosesencountersGodattheburningbushinExodus3,heasksGodwhathisnameis.Godtellshimthat his name is “I am.” In John, Jesus appears to take the name upon himself. Here he does notreceive “the name that is above every name” at his exaltation after his resurrection, as in thePhilippianspoem (Phil. 2:9).Healreadyhas “thename”whileonearth.Throughout theGospelofJohn, theunbelieving Jewsunderstand fullwellwhat Jesus is sayingabouthimselfwhenhemakessuchclaims.Theyregularlytakeupstonestoexecutehimforcommittingblasphemy,forclaiminginfacttobeGod.

OtherTracesofIncarnationChristologiesBY NO STRETCH OF the imagination have I intended to provide a full, complete, and exhaustiveevaluationofeveryChristologicalpassageoftheNewTestamentinmydiscussionssofar.Todothatwould take a very long book indeed, and my objective is something else—to explain the twodominant Christological options of the early Christian movement: the older Christology “frombelow,”whichIamcallinganexaltationChristology,arguablytheveryfirstChristologicalviewoftheveryfirstfollowersofJesuswhocametobelievehehadbeenraisedfromthedeadandexaltedtoheaven; and the somewhat later Christology “from above,” which I am calling an incarnationChristology.Wedon’tknowhowsoonChristiansstartedthinkingofJesusnotmerelyasamanwhohad become an angel or an angel-like being, but as an angel—or some other divine being—whopreexistedhisappearanceonearth.ButitmusthavebeenremarkablyearlyintheChristiantradition.This view did not originate with the Gospel of John, as I used to believe (as have a lot of otherscholars).ItwasinplacewellbeforePaul’sletters,asevidencedinthefactthatthepre-PaulineChristpoemofPhilippians attests it, as doesPaul himself in scattered and sometimes frustratinglyvaguereferences throughout his writings. I don’t think we can say for certain that this incarnationChristologydatesearlierthantheearly50sCE,butthere’snoreasonitcouldnotdoso.Possiblyitismuchearlier.OnceChristiansthoughtofJesusasanangel—andthatcouldhavehappenedveryearly,perhapsinthefirstyearsofthemovement—thewaywasopenedfortheideathathehadalwaysbeenanangel,andthereforeapreexistentdivinebeing.AndsoanincarnationChristologywasborn.

As we will see, eventually incarnation Christologies developed significantly and overtookexaltationChristologies,whichcametobedeemedinadequateand,eventually,“heretical.”AlreadyinsomeofthelaterwritingsoftheNewTestamentwehaveelevatedaffirmationsofthedivinityofJesusinChristologicalpassagesthatapparentlywerewrittentocounterearlier,objectionableviews.Thisisthecase,forexample,withapassageattributedtoPaulinthebookofColossians.

TheLettertotheColossiansIsaythispassageisattributedtoPaulbecausescholarshavelonghadreasonstothinkthatthisbookwaswritten by one of his later followers some time after Paulwas dead.18 I won’t go into thosereasons here. But I do want to note quickly that the book embraces Christological views that are

astounding in their affirmation of who Christ really is. In particular the poetic section (anotherpreliterarytraditionperhaps?)in1:15–20haslongfascinatedscholars.Here,Christissaidtobethe“imageoftheinvisibleGod”(1:15)—aclearallusiontoJewishteachingsofWisdomasahypostasisofGod.Christ iscalled the“firstbornofallcreation”(1:15),andweare told that“all thingswerecreated in him” (1:16). These “all things” are not just the material world, but all natural andsupernaturalbeings“inheavenandonearth,visibleandinvisible,whetherthronesordominionsorprincipalitiesorauthorities”(1:16).JustasinthePrologueofJohn,ChristtheLogoswasmadeflesh;here,heisWisdommadeflesh.Infact“inhimallthefullnessofGodwaspleasedtodwell”(1:19).WehavenowmovedintoanentirelydifferentrealmfromtheearlierexaltationChristologies.

TheLettertotheHebrewsSomethingsimilarcouldbesaidoftheelevatedChristologicalstatementsofthelettertotheHebrews,a book that was eventually admitted into the New Testament once church fathers had becomeconvincedthatPaulwrote it,eventhoughitdoesnotexplicitlyclaimtobewrittenbyPaulandwasalmostcertainlynotwrittenbyhim.ThebookbeginswithstrikingChristologicalclaims.Christisthe“Son ofGod”who is the “heir of all things” and “throughwhom [God] created theworld” (1:2).Morethanthat,likethehypostasesofWisdomandLogos,Christ“reflectsthegloryofGodandbearstheverystampofhisnature,upholdingtheuniversebyhiswordofpower”(1:3).

Thismayappear tobe thekindof incarnationalChristologyfound in theGospelofJohn—andindeed it isveryclose in some respects.ButahintofexaltationChristology remainshereaswell,muchaswefoundinthePhilippiansChristpoem.Forhere,afterJesus’sdeath,wearetoldthathe“satdownattherighthandoftheMajestyonhigh,havingbecomeasmuchsuperiortoangelsasthenamehe has obtained is more excellent than theirs” (1:3–4). Once more, as in Philippians, we have anincarnationalChristologymixedwithalaterexaltation.OneofthemajorthemesoftheearlypartofHebrews is thatChrist in fact is superior to all angelicbeings (e.g., 1:5–8;2:5–9). In stressing thispoint, the unknown author quotes the passage from Psalm 45 that we had occasion to notice inChapter2,inwhichthekingofIsraeliscalled“God.”NowtheverseistakentorefertoChrist:“Yourthrone,OGod,isforeverandever”(1:8).

ThebookofHebrewswants to stress thatChrist is superior to theangels inpartbecauseof itsoverridingemphasis:ChristissuperiortosimplyeverythinginJudaism—angels,Moses,theJewishpriests, the Jewish high priest, the sacrifices in the temple, and on and on. Once again, we areconfrontedwith thediscomfitingsituation.TomakesuchexaltedprofessionsaboutChristmoreorlessforcedtheChristianstodriveawedgebetweentheirviewsandthoseofJews,amattertowhichwereturnintheepilogue.

BeyondIncarnationAT THIS POINT IT is enough tonote that exaltationChristologies eventuallygaveway to incarnationChristologies,withsomeauthors—suchastheanonymouswritersofthePhilippiansChristpoemandthe letter to the Hebrews—presenting a kind of amalgam of the two views. Eventually, however,incarnationChristologiesemergedasdominantintheChristiantradition.

But this is not the end of the story of how Jesus became God. As we will see, innumerabledevelopments occurred as theologians tried to work out the precise implications of these ratherimpreciseearlyclaimsmadeaboutChrist.Oneofthefirstissuestobeaddressedisonethatmayseem

blindingly obvious tomost readers as a potential problem. IfChrist reallywasGod, andGod theFatherwasGod,howcouldChristiansclaimthattherewasjustoneGod?Aren’ttheretwoGods?AndiftheHolySpiritisalsoGod,aren’ttherethreeGods?Ifso,aren’tChristianspolytheistsinsteadofmonotheists?

ManyofthestrugglesintheperiodaftertheNewTestamentperiodwereoverthispreciseissue.Numeroussolutionstotheproblemwereposed,severalofwhichwereeventuallydenouncedasfalseteachingsandheresies.Butothersolutionsledtheologiansfurtheronwardandupwardastheytriedtorefine their views, so as to affirm in the strongest terms their hard-fought convictions: JesuswasGod;hewasnotGodtheFather;yettherewasonlyoneGod.

CHAPTER8

AftertheNewTestament

ChristologicalDeadEndsoftheSecondandThirdCenturies

OVERTHEPASTFIVEyearsIhavebecomere-enamoredwithFrenchcinema,andamongmyfavoritefilmmakersisEricRohmer.IamespeciallytakenbyhistwobrilliantfilmsMyNightatMaud’s (ManuitchezMaud,1969)andATaleofWinter(Conted’hiver,1992).Theplotsofbothfilmsaredriven,inpart,byaphilosophicalconceptknownas“Pascal’sWager,”derivedfromtheseventeenth-centuryphilosopherBlaisePascal.

Pascal’sWagerisinvokedinthesetwofilmsthroughtheirexplorationsofpersonalrelationships.Supposeapersonhasadecisiontomakeinlife—todosomethingornot.Eventhoughtherewouldbenodownsideindoingit,shewouldhaveonlytheslimmestofchancesforsuccess.Still,thatsuccess,should ithappen,would lead toanamazinglypositiveoutcome.Pascal’sWagersays thatgiven thechoice,eveniftheoddsforsuccessareslim,itisbetterforhertotaketherisk:thereisnothingforhertoloseandalotforhertogain.

When Pascal developed this idea, it was related not to existential decisions about personalrelationships,asinRohmer ’sfilms,buttotheology.ForPascal,amanoftheEnlightenment,itwasimportanttodecidewhetherornottobelievethatGodexists.Theremaybeonlyaslimchancethathedoes.Still,ifsomeonedecidestobelieve,therecouldbeafantasticrewardifheisrightandnorealdownsideifheiswrong.Ontheotherhand,ifhedecidesnottobelieve,norealbenefitscomefromthedecision,buttherecouldbeveryrealandharmfuldownsides(suchaseternalpunishment).Andso,eventhoughthechancesofbeingrightmayberemote,itisbettertobelievethannottobelieve.

Peoplehaveoften toldme that I should return tomyChristian faithbecauseofPascal’sWager.TheirlogicisthatifIbelieveinChrist,IcouldexperienceenormousbenefitsifitturnsoutthatChristreally is theSonofGodwhobringssalvation,andnodownside ifhe isnot;but if Ichoosenot tobelieve,Icouldfaceenormous(eternal)badconsequences,withnoupside.Soitisbettertobelievethannottobelieve.

Onthesurfacethismaysoundconvincing,butIthinkitneedstobeputintoabroaderperspective.Theproblemisthatdecidingfororagainstaparticularreligiouspointofviewisnotlikeflippingacoin,wherethereareonlytwopossibleoptionsandoutcomes.Therearehundredsofreligionsintheworld. You cannot choose for all of them, because some of them are exclusivistic and require aperson’stotalcommitment.Soitisnotaneither/orproposition,asthosewhosupportPascal’sWagersometimesimagine.

To put it in simple terms, if you were to choose for Christianity, that would mean choosingagainstIslam(topickanexample).ButwhatiftheMuslimviewaboutGodandsalvationisrightandtheChristianviewiswrong?Thenitdoesn’thelptohavetakenPascal’sWagerandtohavechosenChristianity.

Christianity has long been an exclusivistic religion—meaning that historically, a person whochose to be a follower of Christ could not also be a Muslim or a Hindu or a pagan. And thisexclusivismdoesnotmerelykeepapersonfrombeingaChristianandsomethingelse;italsokeepsapersonfrombeingadifferentkindofChristianwithadifferentkindofChristianbelief.Asit turnsout,therearemanydifferentkindsofChristians,someofwhomclaimthatifyoudonotadopttheirparticularversionofthefaith,youcannotbesaved.IknowofsomeBaptistchurchesthatinsistthatifyouarenotbaptizedintheirBaptistchurch,youarelost.BeingbaptizedinsomeotherBaptistchurchisnotgoodenough—letaloneinaPresbyterian,Lutheran,Methodist,orotherkindofchurch.Withhard-core conservative forms of Christianity like this, it is obviously not a matter of taking the“wager”andchoosingbetweenjusttwooptions.Therearetonsofoptions,anyoneofwhichmightbe“right.”

ThisstresswithinChristianitythatthereisarightviewandlotsofwrongviews;thatthewrongviewsare foundnotonlyoutsideChristianity,butalso inside it;and thatwrongviewscould leadapersonstraighttothedepthsofhell,isnotsimplyamoderninvention.Itgoesbacktotheearlyyearsofthechurch.ItwascertainlyinplaceinthesecondandthirdChristiancenturies.Bythattimeithadbecome exceedingly easy to castigate anyone as a “heretic” for holding to an alternative way oflooking atGod, andChrist, and salvation.Decidingwhowas right andwhowaswrong, andwhatviewswere trueandwhatviewswere false,becameanoverpoweringconcernamong theChristianleaders.ThisisbecausemanyChristiansaftertheNewTestamentperiodhadcometothinkthatChristwas the only way of gaining salvation.Moreover, this salvation came only by having the correctunderstandingaboutGod,Christ, salvation,andsoon.For that reason,discerningrightandwrongbeliefs—ascertainingwhatwas“orthodox” (right) and“heretical” (false)—becameanobsessionofmanyoftheleadersoftheearlychurch.

OrthodoxyandHeresyintheEarlyChurchTHEREWERENUMEROUSVIEWSofChristthroughoutthesecondandthirdChristiancenturies.SomeofJesus’sfollowersthoughthewasahumanbutwasnot(bynature)divine;othersthoughthewasdivinebutnotahuman;othersthoughthewastwodifferentbeings,onehumanandonedivine;yetothers—thesidethat“won”thesedebates—maintainedthathewashumananddivineatoneandthesametimeandyetwasonebeing,nottwo.Thesedebates,however,needtobeplacedintheirbroadercontext.ForChristianswerearguingnotsimplyabouttheidentityandnatureofChrist,butaboutallsortsofothertheologicalissuesthatwerecirculatingatthetime.

ThereweredebatesaboutGod,forexample.SomeChristiansmaintainedthattherewasonlyoneGod.OthersarguedthatthereweretwoGods—thattheGodoftheOldTestamentwasnotthesameastheGodofJesus.Yetothersarguedthatthereweretwelvegods,orthirty-sixgods,oreven365gods.How could someonewith those views even be Christian?Why didn’t they simply read their NewTestamentandseethattheywerewrong?Theanswer,ofcourse,isthattheNewTestamentdidnotyetexist. To be sure, all of the books that were later collected and placed in the New Testament anddeemed,then,tobeholyscripturewereinexistence.Butsowerelotsofotherbooks—otherGospels,epistles,andapocalypses, forexample—allof themclaiming tobewrittenby theapostlesof Jesusandclaimingtorepresentthe“true”viewofthefaith.Whatwethinkofasthetwenty-sevenbooksof“the”NewTestament emergedout of these conflicts, and itwas the side thatwon thedebatesoverwhattobelievethatdecidedwhichbooksweretobeincludedinthecanonofscripture.1

Therewereotherwide-rangingdebatesaswell.WastheHebrewBible—theJewishscriptures—partoftherevelationofthetrueGod?OrwasitsimplyasacredbookoftheJews,ofnorelevanceforChristians?Orevenmoreextreme,wasitauthoredbyalower,malevolentdeity?

Whatabouttheworldwelivein?WasitthecreationoftheonetrueGod?OrwasittheinferiorcreationoftheGodoftheJews(whowasnottheGodoftheChristians)?Orwasitacosmicdisasterandinherentlyevil?

ThereasonmostChristianstodaywouldhavenotroubleansweringanyofthesequestionsisthatoneperspectivefromearlyChristianityemergedastriumphantinthedebatesoverwhattobelieveandhowtolive.ThisisthesidethatinsistedthattherewasonlyonetrueGod;hehadcreatedtheworld,calledtheJewstobehispeople,andgiventhemhisscriptures.Theworldhadbeencreatedgood,butithadbecomecorruptbecauseofsin.Eventually,though,Godwouldredeemtheworldandallofhistruefollowersinit.ThisredemptionwouldcomethroughhisSon,JesusChrist,whowasbothGodandhumanatoneandthesametime,theonewhodiedforthesalvationofallwhobelieveinhim.

That this viewwould emerge as triumphant was not at all a foregone conclusion in the earlyChristiancenturies.Buttriumphitdid,anditbecamethedominantChristianbeliefuntilnow.Here,IfocusonthedebatesconcerningtheviewsofChrist,especiallyashewasregardedasGod.

Scholarsoftendescribethesetheologicaldebatesasstrugglesbetween“orthodoxy”and“heresy.”Thesearerathertrickyterms,innosmallmeasurebecausewhattheyliterallymeanisnothowtheyareusedbyhistorianswhoaretodayengagedinthestudy.Literally,thewordorthodoxymeansrightbelief.Thewordheresyliterallymeansachoice—thatis,achoicenottobelievethe“rightbelief.”Asynonymforheresyisheterodoxy,whichliterallymeansdifferentbelief—that is,different fromthebeliefthatis“right.”Thereasonhistoriansdonotusethesetermsaccordingtotheirliteralmeaningsis that historians are not theologians (or if they are theologians, they are not practicing theologywhentheyarewritinghistory).Atheologianmaybeabletotellyouwhatthe“right”thingtobelieveis,andwhat“wrong”thingsshouldnotbebelieved.Butthehistorianhasnoaccess—asahistorian—totheologicaltruthortowhatis“right”intheeyesofGod.Thehistorianhasaccessonlytohistoricalevents.AndsothehistoriancandescribehowsomeearlyChristiansthoughttherewasonlyoneGodandothersthoughtthereweretwo,or twelve,or thirty-six,or365;but thehistoriancannotsaythatoneofthesegroupswasactually“right.”

Still, historians do continue to use the termsorthodoxy,heresy, andheterodoxy to describe theearlystrugglesovertruth.Thisisnotbecausehistoriansknowwhichside,ultimately,wasright,butbecausetheyknowwhichside,ultimately,prevailed.ThesidethateventuallywonthemostconvertsanddecidedwhatChristiansshouldbelieve iscalled“orthodox,”because itestablished itselfas thedominantviewandthusdeclareditwasright.A“heresy”ora“heterodoxy,”fromamodernhistoricalperspective,issimplyaviewthatlostthedebate.

Istressthispointbecauseif,inthischapter,Idescribeaviewasorthodoxorasheretical,I’mnotmaking a claimaboutwhat I think is true and right or false andwrong. I’m referring instead to apositionthateithercametodominatethetraditionorlostthebattle.

Thischapterismainlyabouttheviewsthatlostandcametobedeclaredheresies;thenextchapterexploresthosethatwonandcametobedeclaredorthodox.Ibeginwiththreehereticalviewsthatweredecisivelyruledoutofboundsbytheemergingorthodoxopinion.TheseviewscanbesetoutasthreecontrastingwaysofunderstandingChrist.SomeChristiansdeniedthatChristwasGodbynature;forthem,hewas“only”ahumanwhowasadoptedtobedivine.OthersdeniedthatChristcouldbehumanbynature;forthem,heonly“appeared”tobeaman.YetothersdeniedthatJesusChristwasasingle

being; for them, hewas two separate beings, one human and one divine.All three of these viewsendedupbeingtheological“deadends.”Alotofpeoplewentdownthesepaths,buttheyeventuallylednowhere.2

ThePathThatDeniesDivinityONEOFTHEMOSTinterestingfeaturesoftheearlyChristiandebatesoverorthodoxyandheresyisthefactthatviewsthatwereoriginallyconsidered“right”eventuallycametobethoughtofas“wrong”;thatis,viewsoriginallydeemedorthodoxcametobedeclaredheretical.NowhereisthismoreclearthaninthecaseofthefirsthereticalviewofChrist—theviewthatdenieshisdivinity.AswesawinChapter 6, the very firstChristians held to exaltationChristologieswhichmaintained that themanJesus(whowasnothingmore thanaman)hadbeenexalted to thestatusandauthorityofGod.TheearliestChristiansthoughtthatthishappenedathisresurrection;eventually,someChristianscametobelieveithappenedathisbaptism.BothviewscametoberegardedashereticalbythesecondcenturyCE,when itwaswidelyheld thatwhateverelseonemightsayaboutChrist, itwasclear thathewasGod by nature and always had been. It is not that the second-century “heresy-hunters” among theChristianauthorsattackedtheoriginalChristiansfortheseviews.Instead,theyattackedthepeopleoftheirowndayforholdingthem;andintheirattackstheymoreorless“rewrotehistory,”byclaimingthatsuchviewshadneverbeenheldbytheapostlesatthebeginningorbythemajorityofChristiansever.Theywereinsteadinnovationsthatneededtobetrouncedandrejectedbyalltruebelievers.

TheEbionitesSeveral groups in the second Christian century appear to have held on to the very ancientunderstanding of Christ as a human being who had been adopted by God at his baptism. It isunfortunatethatwedonothavewritingsfromanyofthesegroupsthatlayouttheirviewsindetail.Instead, for themost part, all we have are thewritings of theChristian authors—usually “heresy-hunters,”knowntoscholarsasheresiologists—whoopposedthem.Itisalwaysdifficulttoreconstructagroup’sviewsifallyouhavearewritingsbytheirenemieswhoareboundanddeterminedtoattackthem.Butsometimesthatisallwehave,andsuchisthecasehere.Scholarshavelongknownthatitisnecessarytotaketheheresiologists’claimswithapoundofsalt.Butevenso,itdoesseemplausibleinthiscasethatsomeChristianscontinuedtoholdtheviewsascribedtothembytheirenemies.OnesuchgrouphasbeenknownastheEbionites.

The Ebionites are attacked by a number of our heresiologists, including one we will haveoccasion todiscussatgreater length, achurch leader inRome from theearly thirdcenturynamedHippolytus. Throughout our sources the Ebionites are portrayed as Jewish Christians—that is,ChristianswhocontinuedtothinkitwasnecessaryforthefollowersofJesustokeeptheJewishlawandJewishcustoms,thatis,toretain(oracquire)aJewishidentity.Therewasacertainlogictothisview:ifJesuswastheJewishmessiahsentfromtheJewishGodtotheJewishpeopleinfulfillmentoftheJewishlaw,thenitmakessensethatheembracedaJewishreligionandthattobehisfollowerapersonneedstobeJewish.ButasChristianityincreasinglybecamegentile(non-Jewish),italsomakessensethatiteventuallydepartedfromitsJewishrootsandcametoopposekeyaspectsofJudaism,aswewillseeatgreaterlengthintheepilogue.

SomescholarshavemaintainedthattheEbionitescouldtracetheirtheologicallineagebacktotheearliest followers of Jesus, the Jewish believers who congregated in Jerusalem in the years after

Jesus’sdeatharoundtheleadershipofhisbrotherJames.IntermsoftheirChristologicalviews,theEbionitesdoindeedappeartohavesubscribedtotheperspectiveofthefirstChristians.AccordingtoHippolytus,inhislengthybookRefutationofAllHeresies,theEbionitesmaintainedthattheycouldbemaderightwithGod,or“justified,”bykeepingtheJewishlaw,justasJesushimselfwas“justifiedbyfulfillingthelaw.”BeingmaderightwithGod,then,wasamatteroffollowingChrist’sexample,andanyonewhodid soalsobecamea“Christ.” In thisview,Christwasnotdifferent“bynature” fromeveryoneelse.Hewassimplyaveryrighteousman.OrasHippolytusputsit,theEbionites“assertthatourLordHimselfwasamaninalikesensewithall(therestofthehumanfamily)”(Refutation22).3

IntheopinionofHippolytusandhisorthodoxpeers,nothingcouldbefartherfromthetruth.Forthem,ChristwasGod—notbecausehewasexaltedtoadivinestatus,butbecausehewasapreexistentdivinebeingwhohadalwaysbeenwithGodandwasequalwithGod,evenbeforehewasborn.

TheTheodotians(RomanAdoptionists)Anothergroupthatheldtosuch“adoptionist”views—theviewthatChristwasnotbynaturedivinebutwasadoptedtobeGod’sson—emergednotoutofJewishChristianity,butfrompurelygentilestock.ThiswasagroupknownastheTheodotians,namedaftertheirfounder,ashoemaker,whohappenedalso to be an amateur theologian, named Theodotus. Since they were centered in Rome, scholarssometimesrefertothisgroupastheRomanAdoptionists.

ThefollowersofTheodotusdidthinkthatChristwasunlikeotherhumansinthathewasbornofavirginmother(andsotheymayhaveacceptedeithertheGospelofMatthewortheGospelofLukeasscripture).Butotherthanthat,asHippolytustellsus,forthem“Jesuswasa(mere)man”(Refutation23). Since Jesuswas unusually righteous, at his baptism something special happened: the Spirit ofGodcameuponhim,givinghimthepowertodohisgreatmiraculousdeeds.AsHippolytuspresentsit, the Theodotianswere split among themselves concerning Jesus’s relationship toGod: some ofthemmaintained thatJesuswasa“mereman”whowasempoweredby theSpirithe receivedat thebaptism;othersapparentlybelievedthatatthatpointJesusbecamedivine;yetothersmaintainedthat“hewasmadeGodaftertheresurrectionfromthedead”(Refutation23).

ThelongestrefutationoftheTheodotians’perspectivecomesinthewritingsofEusebius,whomwehavealreadymetasthe“fatherofchurchhistory.”Ashappenssofrequentlythroughouthisten-volumeworkonthehistoryofthechurch,Eusebiusquotesatlengthanearlierwritingthatattacksaheretical view, without, however, indicating who the author was. A later church father called thewritinginquestion“TheLittleLabyrinth”andindicatedthatitwasproducedbythegreattheologianOrigen,whoseownChristologicalviewsIwilldiscussbelow.Asitturnsout,somemodernscholarshavearguedthatitwasinsteadwrittenbyHippolytus.Ineitherevent,thissourceappearstohavebeenwrittenintheearlythirdcentury,anditisdirectedagainsttheadoptionistswhomaintainedthat“theSaviorwasmerelyhuman.”

Theauthorof“TheLittleLabyrinth”indicatesthatTheodotustheshoemakerhadafollowerwhowasabankerandwhowasalsocalled,remarkablyenough,Theodotus.AnothermemberofthegroupwasamannamedNatalius,whowasinducedtobecomethebishopofthegroupwhenhewastoldthathewouldreceive150denariiamonthforhistroubles(asizableamountofmoneyatthetime).ButtheninaninterestinganecdotewearetoldthatNataliuswasdrivenfromthesectbyanactofGod,whosenthimsomeverygraphicnightmaresinwhichhe“waswhippedallnightlongbyholyangelsand suffered severely, so that he got up early, put on sackcloth, sprinkled himselfwith ashes, andwithout a moment’s delay prostrated himself in tears before the Roman bishop Zephyrinus”

(Eusebius,ChurchHistory5.28).4

Theauthorof“TheLittleLabyrinth”indicatesthattheTheodotiansmaintainedthattheirview—thatJesuswascompletelyhuman,andnotdivine,butthathewasadoptedtobetheSonofGod—hadbeenthedoctrinetaughtbytheapostlesthemselvesandbymostofthechurchinRomeuntilthetimeofBishopVictor,attheendofthesecondcentury.Historically,aswehaveseen,theTheodotiansmaywellhavehadapoint:somesuchunderstandingdoesindeedappeartohavebeenamongtheearliestChristianbeliefs.WhetheritwastheviewheldbymostRomanChristiansuntilneartheirowntimeisnot as clear.The author of “TheLittleLabyrinth” refutes the claimby pointing out that renownedChristianauthors from the timeof JustinMartyr,whowaswriting inRomearound150CE, held adifferentview:“ineveryoneoftheseChristisspokenofasGod.”

InChapter9wewillseethatthisauthorisright:JustindidseeChristasapreexistentdivinebeing.ButJustinwaswriting120yearsafterthe“earliest”Christiansandcannot,ofcourse,beusedtoshowwhat the followers of Jesuswere saying in the years just after Jesus’s death,more than a centuryearlier.

Itisworthobservingthat“TheLittleLabyrinth”accusestheTheodotiansofalteringthetextsoftheNewTestamenttheywerecopyinginordertoinserttheirownadoptionistviewsintothem.Itisaninterestingpassageandworthquotingatlength:

They laid hands unblushingly on theHoly Scriptures, claiming to have corrected them. In saying this I amnot slanderingthem,asanybodywhowishescansoonfindout. Ifanyonewill takethe trouble tocollect theirseveralcopiesandcomparethem,hewilldiscoverfrequentdivergencies;forexample,Asclepiades’copiesdonotagreewithTheodotus’.Alargenumberareobtainable,thankstotheemulousenergywithwhichdisciplescopiedthe“emendations”orratherperversionsofthetextbytheirrespectivemasters.NordotheseagreewithHermophilus’copies.AsforApolloniades,hiscannotevenbeharmonizedwith each other; it is possible to collate the ones which his disciples made first with those that have undergone furthermanipulation, and to find endless discrepancies. . . . They cannot deny that the impertinence is their own, seeing that thecopiesareintheirownhandwriting,thattheydidnotreceivetheScripturesinsuchaconditionfromtheirfirstteachers,andthattheycannotproduceanyoriginalstojustifytheircopies.(Eusebius,ChurchHistory5.28)

This became a standard charge among the orthodox heresy-hunters of the early Christiancenturies—thatthehereticsalteredtheirtextsofscriptureinordertomakethemsaywhattheywantedthemtosay.But twopointsneedtobestressedwhenevaluatingtheseclaims.Thefirst is thatmanytextsofscriptureactuallydidsupport suchhereticalviews,aswesaw inChapter6whenwe talkedabout exaltation Christologies (e.g., Rom. 1:3–4; Acts 13:33). The second is that even though theorthodoxclaimedthatthiskindofmanipulationoftextswasahereticalactivity,inthemanuscriptsoftheNewTestament thatsurvive todayalmostall theevidencepoints in theotherdirection,showingthatitwaspreciselyorthodoxscribeswhomodifiedtheirtextsinordertomakethemconformmorecloselywithorthodox theological interests.Certainheterodoxscribesmayhavedone thesame,butamongoursurvivingmanuscriptsthereisalmostnoevidencetodemonstratethattheydidso.5

Inanyevent,theseadoptionistviewswererejectedbytheorthodoxtheologiansofthesecondandthirdcenturies,whoseviewshadfirmlymovedintothecampofincarnationalChristologies,inwhichChristwasunderstoodbynaturetobeapreexistentdivinebeingwhohadbecomehuman.

ThePathThatDeniesHumanityWEHAVESEENTHATthoseholdingadoptionistviewsofChristclaimedtorepresenttheearliestviews

of Jesus’s own apostles. Of course, every group representing every view of early ChristianityclaimedthatitsviewsweretheoriginalteachingsofJesusandhisearthlyfollowers—butinthecaseof theadoptionists, theymaywellhavebeenright.Theviewweconsidernowis insomeways thepolaropposite:itmaintainedthatratherthanbeingcompletelyhuman,andsonot—bynature—divine,Christinsteadwascompletelydivine,andsonot—bynature—human.Eventually,thisviewcametobelabeleddocetism,fromtheGreekworddokeo,whichmeanstoseemortoappear.Accordingtothisview,Christwasnotreallyamanbutonly“appeared”tobe.HeinfactwascompletelyGod.AndGod,forthesebelievers,couldnotbeahumananymorethanahumancanbearock.

This understanding too can be traced back to early times, though not nearly as early as theadoptionistunderstandingrootedinexaltationChristologies.Doceticviews,whenfirstwemeetthem,appeartohaveemergedoutofincarnationChristologieslaterinthefirstcentury—butstillduringthetimesoftheNewTestament.Onewouldbehard-pressedtoseethemasviewsadoptedbytheoriginalfollowersofJesus,however.Aswehaveseen,theremaybesomereasontosuspectthatPaulheldtosomesuchviews—butitisverydifficulttosay.PauldoesspeakaboutChristcominginthe“likenessof sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3) and to have been “in appearance” as a human (Phil. 2:7), but he neverspells out clearly his views about the humanity of Jesus. He does, however, say that Christ wasactually“bornofawoman”(Gal.4:4),andthatdoesnotsoundlikethesortofthingmostdocetistswouldwanttoclaim.

As a result, the first clear attestation of a docetic view comes only near the end of the NewTestamentperiod,inthebookknownas1John.Theauthorofthisanonymousworkwastraditionallysaid tobe Jesus’sdisciple John, the sonofZebedee.Thebookwasalmost certainlynotwrittenbyhim, though,and itmakesnoclaim tobewrittenbyhim.What isclear is that thebook isdirectedagainstmembersofthisauthor ’scommunity—orratherformermemberswhohavesplitofffromthelargergroupbecauseofadifferenceofopinionconcerning thenatureofChrist’sexistence.ThosewhohaveleftthecommunitytofoundtheirownchurchdonotbelievethatChrist“cameintheflesh”;thatis,theydonotbelievehewasarealflesh-and-bloodhumanbeing.

TheDocetistsOpposedin1JohnTheauthorof1Johnexplicitlyreferstoagroupofformermembersofthecommunitywhohaveleft,whom he calls antichrists—that is, “those opposed to Christ”: “Nowmany antichrists have come,fromwhichweknowthatitisthelasthour.Theywentoutfromusbuttheywerenotofus;foriftheyhadbeenofus theywouldhaveremainedwithus.But theywentout inorder that theyallmightbeshownnottobeofus”(1John2:18–19).

It isclear from thispassage that theopponentsofChristwereonce in thisauthor ’schurch,buttheyleft.Theauthormaintainsthattheyneverreallywereoflikemindwiththosewhoremainedinthe community. But what was the issue that made them leave? On another occasion the authormentions the“antichrists,”but this timehe tellsuswhat it is theybelievedthatwasatoddswithhisownviewsandtheviewsofthewidercommunity:“BythisyouknowtheSpiritofGod.Everyspiritthat confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is fromGod; and every spirit that does notconfessJesusisnotfromGod.Thisisthespiritoftheantichrist,whichyouhaveheardiscomingandnowisintheworldalready”(4:2–3).

And so, only those who acknowledge that Christ came “in the flesh” can be considered truebelievers.Theantichristswhohaveleftthecommunityapparentlydidnotmakethisacknowledgment.Scholarsdebatethemeaningofthispassage,butitiseasiesttoassumethatthosewhohavesplitfrom

thecommunitydenytherealfleshlyexistenceofChrist.Thiswouldexplainaswellwhytheauthorbeginshisbookthewayhedoes,bystressingthatChristhadareal,bodily,tangibleexistence:“Whatwasfromthebeginning,whatwehaveheard,whatwehaveseenwithoureyes,whatwebeheldandourhandshandled,concerningtheword[Logos]oflife;andthelifehasbeenmanifestedandwehaveseenandwitnessedandreporttoyoutheeternallifethatwaswiththefatherandhasbeenmanifesttous”(1:1–2).

HegoesontosaythatheisreferringtotheSonofGod,JesusChrist(1:3).Whydoeshestressthetactile existence of Christ as one who could be seen, heard, and handled? Precisely because theantichristshavedeniedit.Youmaybestruckbythefactthatthisopeningtothebookof1Johnsoundsvaguely like theopeningof theGospelof John,whichalsostartswith“in thebeginning”andalsorefers to theword/Logos of God that provided life and became a human (John 1:1–14).Why thesimilarities?It iswidelybelievedamongscholars that1Johnwaswrittenbysomeonelivingin thesamecommunityinwhichtheGospelofJohnwaswrittenandcirculated.Aswesaw,thePrologueofJohnstressedthatJesuswastheincarnationofthepreexistentWordofGodwhowasbothwithGodandwas himself God. This incarnation Christology is one of the “highest” views of Christ to befoundintheNewTestament.Howcanweexplaintheviewoftheantichrist,whichis“higher”still—sohigh thatChrist is completelydivine andnot at all human?Some scholarshavemaintained thatwithinthecommunitythatproducedtheGospelofJohn,somebelieverstooktheChristologicalviewsof theGospel to an extreme—or at least towhat they considered to be a logical conclusion—andmaintainedthatJesuswassomuchGodthathecouldnotreallyhavebeenaman.Thebook1Johnwas written, then, to counter that view by insisting that “Jesus Christ came in the flesh” and thatanyonewhorefusedtoacknowledgehisfleshlyexistencewasinfactanantichrist.

TheDocetistsOpposedbyIgnatiusTheviewembracedbytheantichristsdismissedin1JohncametobewidelyheldinsomeChristiangroups of the second century.A similar viewwas opposed by one of themost interesting authorsfromjustafter theNewTestamentperiod,aChristianbishopof thelargechurchinAntioch,Syria,named Ignatius.Wewishweknewagooddealmore thanwedoabout Ignatius’s life.WhatwedoknowisthathewasarrestedinAntiochforChristianactivitiesaround110CEandwassenttoRometobeexecutedbybeingthrowntowildbeasts.OnhisjourneytoRome,Ignatiuswrotesevenlettersthatstillsurvive.Theyare,needlesstosay,fascinatingreading,astheywerewritteninsomehastebyaChristianwhowasstaringagorymartyrdomintheface.Theletterswerewrittentovariouschurches,mostofwhichhadsentrepresentativestomeetIgnatiusalonghisjourney.Ignatiushadlearnedoftheinnerworkingsofthesechurchesandwaswritingtohelpthemdealwiththeirproblems.OneofthemajorproblemsheheardaboutwasthatsomeofthesecommunitieswerehavingconflictsoverthenatureofChrist,assomeoftheirmemberswereembracingadoceticChristology.

IgnatiustakesastrongstandagainstanysuchunderstandingthatChristwasnotarealflesh-and-bloodhumanbeingwhophysicallysufferedanddied.Andonecanimaginewhyhewassoadamantinhisoppositiontosuchviews.IfChristdidnotreallyexperiencepainanddeath—thatis,ifhewasonlya phantom of some kind without a real body or physical sensation—what would be the sense ofIgnatiushimselfgoingthroughtortureanddeathasafollowerofChrist?ForIgnatius,Christwasamanlikeallmen.HewasGodtoo,tobesure.Buthehadarealbody,hecouldfeelrealpain,andhecouldexperiencerealdeath.

And so Ignatius tells hisChristian readers in the city ofTralles that they are to “be deafwhen

someonespeakstoyouapartfromJesusChrist.”ForChrist“wastrulyborn,bothateanddrank,wastrulypersecutedatthetimeofPontiusPilate,wastrulycrucifiedanddied”(TotheTrallians9).6Hegoesontoattackpeoplehecalls“atheists.”Helabelsthem“unbelievers”andindicatesthey“saythatheonlyappearedtosuffer(itistheywhoaretheappearance).”ForiftheyarerightthatChristwasonlyanappearance,“whyamIinbondage,andwhyalsodoIpraytofightthewildbeasts?Iamthendyinginvainandam,evenmore,lyingabouttheLord”(TotheTrallians10).

IgnatiussayssomethingsimilartotheChristiansinthetownofSmyrna:“For[Christ]sufferedallthesethingsforoursake,thatwemightbesaved;andhetrulysuffered...notassomeunbelieverssay, that he suffered only in appearance. They are the ones who are only an appearance” (To theSmyrneans2).Thatistosay,Christwasnotdeceitful,onlypretendingtobeafleshlybeingwhenhewasn’t; it isIgnatius’sdoceticopponentswhoaredeceitful.Ignatiustheninsists thatChristnotonlydiedintheflesh,hewasraisedintheflesh,asprovedbythefactthat“afterhisresurrectionheateanddrankwiththemasafleshlybeing”(TotheSmyrneans3).Christwasnotsimplydisguisedinhumanform; instead, it is the docetists who are “wild beasts in human form.” If Christ was “only inappearance,Ialsoaminchainsonlyinappearance.ButwhythenhaveIhandedmyselfovertodeath,tofire,tothesword,towildbeasts?”ForIgnatius,sincesalvationcomestothehumanbody,itmustbeexperiencedinthehumanbody;anditmusthavebeenaccomplishedbyChrist’sownactualhumanbody.Otherwise,itisjustanemptyandapparentsalvation.

TheMarcionitesThebestknowndocetistofthesecondChristiancenturywasafamouspreacherandphilosopher,whowaseventuallybrandedasanarch-heretic,namedMarcion.ItismuchtoberegrettedthatwedonothaveanywritingsfromMarcion’shand,ashewastremendouslyinfluentialonChristianityinhisday,establishing churches throughout the Christian world that embraced his distinctive teachings.Unfortunately,weknowoftheseteachingsonlyfromwhathisorthodoxenemiessaidaboutthemintheirrefutations.Theserefutationsare,inanyevent,extensive.TheheresiologistTertullian,whomIwill discuss at greater length below,wrote a five-volumework againstMarcion thatwe still havetoday.Thisservesasourchiefsourceofinformationaboutthisgreatheretic.7

Unlike the antichristsmentioned in 1 John,Marciondid not takehis theological cues from theGospelofJohnbutfromthewritingsoftheApostlePaul,whomheconsideredtobethegreatapostlewhoaloneunderstoodtherealmeaningofJesus.PaulinparticularstressedthattherewasadifferencebetweentheJewishlawandthegospelofChrist.ForPaul,followingthedictatesofthelawcouldnotmakeapersonrightwithGod;onlyfaithinthedeathandresurrectionofJesuscoulddothat.Marciontook this differentiation between law and gospel to an extreme by saying that in fact they werecompletelyatoddswithoneanother.Thelawwasonething,thegospelanother.Andthatwasforaveryclearand,toMarcion,obviousreason:thelawwasgivenbytheGodoftheJews,butsalvationwasgivenbytheGodofJesus.Thesewere,infact,twodifferentgods.

Even today, somepeople—oftenChristianpeople—thinkof theGodof theOldTestament as aGodofwrathandtheGodof theNewTestamentasaGodofmercy.Marcionhonedthisviewtoarazor-sharpedge.TheGodoftheOldTestamentcreatedthisworld,calledIsraeltobehispeople,andthengavethemhislaw.Theproblemwasthatnoonecouldpossiblykeepthelaw.TheGodofthelawwas not evil, but he was mercilessly just. And the just punishment for breaking his law wascondemnation to death. That was the punishment everyone deserved, and it is the punishmenteveryonereceived.TheGodofJesus,ontheotherhand,wasaGodoflove,mercy,andforgiveness.

ThisGodsentJesusintotheworldinordertosavethosewhohadbeencondemnedbytheGodoftheJews.

But ifChristbelongedto thespiritual lovingGodrather thanto the justCreatorGod, thatmustmeanhedidnotbelonginanysensetothecreationitself.Christcouldnot,therefore,haveactuallybeenborn and couldnot actually have any attachment to thismaterialworld,whichwas theworldcreatedbyandjudgedbytheGodoftheJews.AndsoJesuscameintotheworldnotasarealhumanbeingwitharealbirth.Hedescendedfromheavenintheappearanceofafull-grownadult,asakindofphantomwhoonlyappearedtohavehumanflesh.Butitwasallanappearance,designed,evidently,tofooltheCreatorGod.Jesus’s“apparent”deathwasacceptedasthepaymentofthesinsofothers,andthroughseemingtodie,thephantomJesusfromthespiritualGodmanagedtobringsalvationtothosewhobelieved in him.But he didn’t really suffer andhe didn’t really die.Howcould he?Hedidn’thavearealbody.Itwasallanappearance.

Inresponse,theopponentsofMarcionamongtheorthodoxinsistedthattheGodwhocreatedtheworldwasthesameGodwhohadredeemedtheworld;theGodwhogavethelawwastheGodwhosentChrist infulfillmentof the law;andChristwasanactual, full, flesh-and-bloodhumanwhodidnotseemtosufferanddiebutwhoreallydidsufferanddie,sheddingrealbloodandfeelingrealpain,sothathecouldbringrealsalvationtorealpeoplewhodesperatelyneededit.TheorthodoxviewthattriumphedoverMarcionandotherdoceticChristians likehim insisted thateven thoughChristwasdivine,hewasalsoactually,reallyhuman.

ThePathThatDeniesUnitySOFARWEHAVEexploredtwoChristologicalextremes—ononehandwereadoptionists,whoclaimedthatChristwashumanbutnot,bynature,divine;ontheotherweredocetists,whoclaimedthatChristwasdivinebutnot,bynature,human.Theorthodoxposition,aswewillsee,claimedthatbothsidesofthis disputewere right inwhat they affirmed andwrong inwhat theydenied:Christwasdivinebynature—actuallyGod—andhewashumanbynature—actuallyman.Buthowcouldhebeboth?Onesolutiontothisproblemwasdeemedcompletelywrong-headedandheretical:thatJesusChristwasinfact two entities, a human Jesus who temporarily came to be inhabited by a divine being, whodepartedfromhimbeforehisdeath.SomesuchviewwasheldbyavarietyofChristiangroupsthatmodernscholarshavecalledGnostic.

ChristianGnosticismTherehavebeenlong,hard,andheateddebatesamongscholarsinrecentyearsconcerningthenatureofthereligiousphenomenonknownasGnosticism.8Ifnothingelse,thesedebateshaveshownthatwecannolongerspeaksimplyofGnosticreligionsasiftherewereamonolithicsetofbeliefssharedbyawiderangeofreligiousgroups,allofwhomcanfairlybelabeledGnostic.Somescholarsthinkthatthe termGnosticism hasbeen sobroadlydefined that it isno longerof anyuseat all.OthershavemoreplausiblysuggestedthatweneedtodefineGnosticismverynarrowlyandreferonlytoacertaingroupasGnosticandtocallother,roughlysimilargroupsbyothernames.SincethisisnotabookaboutGnosticismperse, Idonotneed togo intogreatdetailabout thesescholarlydisagreements,importantastheyare.InsteadIwillsimplyindicatewhatImeanbyGnosticismandbrieflydiscussthekindofChristologicalviewfoundamongsurvivingGnostictexts.

The termGnosticism comes from the Greek word for knowledge, gnosis. As we have seen,ChristianGnosticsmaintainedthatsalvationcamenotthroughfaithinthedeathandresurrectionofJesus, but through proper “knowledge” of the secrets Christ revealed to his followers. For manycenturieswe knew aboutGnostics only from thewritings directed against them by suchChristianheresiologistsasIrenaeus,Hippolytus,andTertullian.Wenowknowthatevenifwetakethereportsoftheseheresy-huntersgingerlyandtreatthemwitharigorouslycriticaleye,theystillcanmisleadusas to the real character of Gnostic views. We know this because actual writings by Gnosticsthemselveshaveturnedup.NowwecanreadwhattheGnosticshavetosayabouttheirownviews.

Themostsignificantfindofsuchwritingsinmoderntimeswasacollectionofbooksuncoveredby Egyptian farmhands digging for fertilizer near the town of NagHammadi.9 This collection iscalledtheNagHammadiLibrary.Itcontainsthirteenbooksthatareancientanthologiesoftexts,mostofthemGnosticwritingsproducedbyGnosticsandforGnosticreaders.Altogetherthebookscontainfifty-two treatises—forty-six if you eliminate duplicates. They are written in the ancient Egyptianlanguage known as Coptic; originally the books were apparently all authored in Greek, so thesurviving copies are later translations. The books in which these treatises were found weremanufacturedin thefourthChristiancentury; thetreatises themselveswerecomposedmuchearlier,probably in the second Christian century. Studies of these books abound in scholarship. For ourpurposes, I briefly summarize the basic view set forth in these texts to help usmake sense of theChristologythatGnosticChristianscommonlyshared.

GnosticChristiansdidnotthinkthatthisworldwasthecreationoftheonetrueGod,makingtheirviews roughly similar to those ofMarcion. But unlikeMarcion, Gnostics subscribed to extensivemythologicalexplanationsforhowtheworldcameintobeing.Itsoriginwastracedfarintoeternitywiththegenerationofnumerousdivinebeingswhomadeupthedivinerealm.Atsomepoint—whenthe divine realmwas all that existed—a cosmic catastrophe occurred that led to the formation ofdivinebeingswhowereimperfectandnotfullyformed.Oneormoreoftheselower,imperfect,and(oftenseenas)ignorantdivinitiescreatedthismaterialworldthatweinhabit.

Gnostictextsdonotexplainthelogiclyingbehindthisviewoftheoriginoftheworld,butitisnothardtodetect.Doesanyonereallywanttoassignresponsibilityforthisworld,filledwithsomuchpainandsuffering,totheonetrueGod?Thisisaworldwithhurricanes,tsunamis,floods,droughts,epidemics, birth defects, famine, war, and on and on. Surely a good and powerful God is notresponsibleforthiscesspoolofmiseryanddespair.Theworldisacosmicdisaster,andthegoalofreligionistoescapethisdisastrousworld.

According to Gnostics, the world is a place of imprisonment for sparks of the divine thatoriginated in thedivine realmbuthave come tobe entrappedhere.These sparkswant andneed toescapetheirmaterialentrapment.Theycandosobylearningthesecretsofwhotheyreallyare,wheretheycamefrom,howtheygothere,andhowtheycanreturn.

YoumaywonderwhatanyofthishastodowithChristianity.AccordingtotheChristianGnostics,thisviewoftheworldwastaughtbyChristhimself.Christistheonewhocameintotheworldtoteachheavenlysecretsthatcanliberatethedivinesparksentrappedinmatter.

A“Separationist”ChristologyApparently,someGnosticsheldtoadoceticunderstanding,thatChrist—whocouldnotbelongtothisevilmaterialworld—came to the earth as a phantom,much asMarcionhad said.MarcionhimselfshouldnotbethoughtofasaGnostic;heheldthat therewereonlytwogods,notmany;hedidnot

thinkofthisworldasacosmicdisaster,butasthecreationoftheOldTestamentGod;andhedidnotthinkdivinesparksresidedinhumanbodiesthatcouldbesetfreebyunderstandingthetrue“gnosis.”Moreover,hisdoceticviewdoesnotappear tohavebeen the typicalviewofGnostics.Rather thanthinkingthatChristwascompletelydivinebutnothuman,mostGnosticsappeartohavethoughtthatJesusChristwas twoentities:ahumanJesuswhowas temporarily inhabitedbyadivinebeing.Forthem, there was a “separation” between Jesus and the Christ. We might call this a separationistChristology.

BecausethemanJesuswassorighteous,adivinebeingfromtheheavenlyrealmcameintohimathisbaptism.ThisiswhytheSpiritdescendeduponJesusand—asMark’sGospelsays—came“into”himatthatpoint(theliteralmeaningofMark1:10).Andthisiswhyhecouldbegindoinghismiraclesthen—notearlier—anddeliveringhisspectacularteachings.Butthedivinecannot,ofcourse,sufferanddie.So,beforeJesusdiedonthecross,thedivineelementlefthim.Thisisattested,someGnosticsclaimed, by Jesus’s final words: “My God, my God, why have you left me behind?” (the literalmeaningofMark15:34).Jesuswasabandonedbyhisdivineelementonthecross.

OneoftheNagHammaditextsthatespousesthiskindofGnosticseparationistChristologymostpoignantly is thebookweconsidered inChapter5called theCopticApocalypseofPeter,which isallegedlynarratedbynoneother thanJesus’sclosestdisciple,Peter. In the finalportionof the text,PeterissaidtobespeakingwithJesus,theSavior,whensuddenlyheseesakindofdoubleofChristwhoisseizedbyhisenemiesandcrucified.PeterisunderstandablyconfusedandasksChrist:“WhatamIseeingOLord?Isityouyourselfwhomtheytake?”10Hisconfusionincreasesbecausethenhesees yet anotherChrist figure above the cross and asks in his dismay: “who is this one above thecross, who is glad and laughing? And is it another person whose feet and hands they arehammering?”(ApocalypseofPeter81).

Christrepliesthatthepersonabovethecrossis“thelivingJesus”andthatthepersonbeingnailedtothecross“ishisphysicalpart.”Andso,thereisaradicaldisjuncturebetweenthephysical,humanJesusandtheJesuswhois“living.”Thephysicalbeingissaid tobe“thehomeofdemons,andtheclayvesselinwhichtheydwell,belongingtoElohim”(thatis,God).ThephysicalJesusbelongstothismaterialworldandtheinferiorGodwhocreatedit.ButnotthelivingJesus:“ButhewhostandsnearhimisthelivingSavior,theprimalpartinhimwhomtheyseized.Andhehasbeenreleased.Hestandsjoyfullylookingatthosewhopersecutedhim.”Inotherwords,thedivineelement—thelivingChrist—has been set free from itsmaterial shell.Andwhy does the living Jesus find the scene soamusing? “Therefore he laughs at their lackof perception, andheknows that they are bornblind.Indeedtherefore,thesufferingonemustremain,sincethebodyisthesubstitute.Butthatwhichwasreleasedwasmyincorporealbody”(ApocalypseofPeter83).

Here then is a separationist Christology. The “real” Christ, the “living Jesus,” is the divineelement that only temporarily inhabited the body. It was this lower, inferior part, the “home ofdemons,”thatwascrucified.ItisnotthedyingJesuswhobringssalvation;salvationcomesthroughthe living Jesus who cannot be affected by suffering and who can never die. Those who don’tunderstand, who think that it is the death of Jesus thatmatters, are the object of Christ’s ridicule.Obviously,thiswouldincludechurchleaderswhoinsistedthattherealsufferinganddeathofJesuswastheonethingthatbroughtsalvation.ForthisGnosticauthor,thesechurchleaderswerenotonlymisguided;theywereajoke.

But the Gnostics did not have the last laugh. For a variety of complex social, cultural, andhistorical reasons, the Gnostic form of Christianity did not succeed in winning the majority of

converts to its perspective. Orthodox church writers such as Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Tertullianendedupwinningtheday.TheseorthodoxauthorsattackedtheGnosticsfortheirdivisiveviewsbasedonadivisivesetoftheologicalbeliefs:Gnostics,theorthodoxcharged,separatedthetrueGodfromcreation;theyseparatedhumanbodiesfromtheirsouls;andtheyseparatedJesusfromChrist.ButinfacttheoneGodhadmadetheworld,whichisaplaceofsufferingnotbecauseitwascreatedevil,butbecauseithasfallenasaresultofsin.ThiswasnotGod’sfault.ThisoneGodhadmadehumansbodyandsoul,andtheywouldbesavedbodyandsoul.ThetrueGodhadsenthisSonintotheworld,notinthemereappearanceofhumanfleshandnotasatemporaryinhabitantofahumanbody.GodwasoneandhisSonwasone,bodyandsoul,fleshandspirit,humananddivine.

EarlyChristianHetero-OrthodoxiesBYTHEENDOFthesecondcenturyitappearsthatamajorityofChristianshadnotacceptedtheviewsoftheadoptionists,thedocetists,ortheGnostics.Alltheseviewswerewidelyseenastheologicaldeadends—orworse, theological heresies that could lead to eternal damnation.MostChristians insteadembraced the understanding that came to be—at least in the next century—the dominant viewthroughoutChristendom:thatChristwasarealhumanbeingwhowasalsoreallydivine,thathewasbothmanandGod,yethewasnottwoseparateentities,butone.How,though,couldthatbe?Ifhewashuman,inwhatsensewashedivine?Andifhewasdivine,inwhatsensewashehuman?ThiswasthetheologicalconundrumChristianthinkershadtoresolve.Ittookthemaverylongtimeindeedtodoso.Beforesettlingononesolution,Christianthinkersproposedanumberofsolutionsthatmayhaveseemed appropriate and satisfying at the time, but that in the long run came to be rejected asinappropriate, dissatisfying, and even heretical. This is one of the hard-and-fast ironies of theChristiantradition:viewsthatatonetimewerethemajorityopinion,oratleastthatwerewidelyseenas completely acceptable, eventually came to be left behind; and as theology moved forward tobecome increasingly nuanced and sophisticated, these earlier majority opinions came to becondemnedasheresies.WehaveseenthismovementalreadywiththeexaltationChristologythatwastheoriginalformofChristianbelief.Bythesecondcenturyitwaswidelydeemedheretical.11Laterunderstandingsofthesecondcenturywereacceptableanddominantintheirday,buttheytoocametobesuspectandevenspurned.

Sincetheselaterunderstandingsembracedtheprincipalorthodoxconcerns—toseeJesusasbothhumananddivine,andasonebeingnottwo—yetcametobecondemnedasheretical,Ihavecoinedanewtermforthem:Icallthemhetero-orthodox(literally“other-orthodox”).HereIconsidertwosuchunderstandingsthatplayedanimportantroleintheformationoflaterChristologicalthinking.

ModalismThefirstwastheviewthatevidentlywasheldbyamajorityofChristiansatthebeginningofthethirdcentury—includingthemostprominentChristianleadersinthechurch,thebishopsofthechurchofRome(i.e.,theearly“popes”).Modernscholarssometimescallthisviewmodalism.

Christians in the period by and large insisted on maintaining two separate views that on thesurfacemay seem,anddid seem toothers, tobecontradictory.The firstwasmonotheism: there isonly one God. There are not two gods, as for Marcion, or an entire realm of gods, as for theGnostics.ThereisoneGodandonlyoneGod.ButthesecondviewwasthatChristwasGod.Itwasn’tmerely thatChristwas a humanwhohadbeen adopted to a status of divine power, as in the (now

primitive)exaltationChristologies.Itwasthathewasapreexistentdivinebeingwhowasbyhisverynature,insomesense,God.ButifGodtheFatherisGod,andChristisGod,howisitthattherearenottwoGods?

TheModalistViewAmodalist Christology explained it. According to modalists, Christ was God and God was Godbecausetheywerethesameperson.Forthosewhotookthisposition,Godexistsindifferentmodesofbeing(hencemodalism),astheFather,andastheSon,andastheSpirit.AllthreeareGod,butthereisonly one God, because the three are not distinct from one another but are all the same thing, indifferentmodes of existence. Letme explain by analogy: I am a different person inmy differentrelationships,eventhoughIamthesameperson.Iamasoninrelationshiptomyfather,andabrotherinrelationshiptomysister,andafatherinrelationshiptomydaughter.Iamson,brother,andfather.Therearenot threeofme,however,butonlyoneofme.Godis like that.HeismanifestasFather,Son,andSpirit;butthereisonlyoneofhim.

According to Hippolytus, this view was held by one of the bishops of Rome named Callistus(bishopfrom217to222CE):“ThattheFatherisnotonepersonandtheSonanother,butthattheyareoneandthesame.”Moreover,“ThatPersonbeingone,cannotbetwo”(Hippolytus,Refutation7).Theconclusion for modalists was clear and straightforward: “If therefore I acknowledge Christ to beGod,He is the FatherHimself, if he is indeedGod; andChrist suffered, beingHimselfGod; andconsequentlytheFathersufferedforHewastheFatherHimself”(Hippolytus,AgainstNoetus2).Orasanadversary,Tertullian,putit,“thedevil”hasputforwardtheviewthat“theFatherHimselfcamedownintothevirgin,wasHimselfbornofher,Himselfsuffered, indeedwasHimselfJesusChrist”(Against Praxeas 1).12 The opponents of the modalist view sometimes mockingly referred tomodalistsas“patripassianists”—thatis, thosewhomaintainthatitwastheFather(Latin,pater)whosuffered(Latin,passus).13

Asmightwellbeimagined,thesupportersofthisviewcouldappealtoscriptureasthesourcefortheir teaching.Forexample, inIsaiah44:6Goddeclares,“Iamthefirstandthelast;andbesidemethereisnoother.”Thissurelymustmeanwhatitsays—thereisliterallynootherGodbesidestheGodoftheOldTestament.Butatthesametime,theApostlePaul,inRomans9:5,speaksof“Christ...whoisoverall,Godblessedforever.”IfthereisonlyoneGod,andChristisGod,thenChrististheGodoftheOldTestament.GodtheSonandGodtheFatherareoneGod—nottwoseparatebeings,butthesamebeing.

ThosewhoembracedthisviewattackedanyonewhothoughtthatChristcouldbeaGodseparatefromGodtheFather.AsHippolytusadmits,themodalistswhoobjectedtohisownview—thattheSonandtheFatherweretwoseparatebeings—“calledusworshippersoftwogods”(Refutation6).OrasTertulliansays,“Theyareconstantlythrowingoutagainstusthatwearepreachersoftwogodsandthreegods,while they take to themselvespre-eminently thecreditofbeingworshippersof theOneGod”(AgainstPraxeas3).

It is no wonder that the modalist understanding was so popular. Hippolytus notes, with somechagrin,thatitwasnotonlytheviewheldbythebishopsofRome,butithad“introducedthegreatestconfusion among all the faithful throughout the world” (Refutation 1). Tertullian admits that the“majority of believers” have trouble accepting his own view but prefer the view of themodalists(AgainstPraxeas3).

But Hippolytus and Tertullian were no pushovers. Quite the contrary, they were forceful

polemicistsandaimedtheirattacksnotonlyatsuch“obvious”hereticsasMarcionandtheGnostics,butalsoatthosewhoseemedtobeorthodoxinaffirmingboththehumanityanddivinityofChristbutwhononethelesspressedthelogicoftheirpositionstoapointthatcreateditsownkindofheresy.Asaresult of this controversy,Hippolytus, one of the leaders of the church ofRome,withdrewwith agroupoflike-mindedChristiansfromthelargerchurchandwaselectedasakindofsectarianbishop.Heisknowntohistoryasthefirstantipope.Inthatrole,hesawhimselfastheadvocateoforthodoxyandmaintainedthatthemorebroadlyrecognizedbishopsofRomewereheretics.

Forhispart,Tertullianwasthebest-knownauthorfromtheimportantchurchinCarthage,NorthAfrica. He was famous as a Christian apologist (that is, a defender of the faith against paganintellectual attacks), heresiologist, essayist, and all-around polemicist. He was one of the mostimportant theologiansof theearly thirdcentury,andnocontroversydrovehimtodevelophisowntheologicalviewswithgreatersophisticationthanhisoppositiontothemodalists.ItwasinthecontextoftheensuingbackandforththatTertullianbecamethefirstChristianauthortoadoptthetermTrinityasawayofunderstandingtherelationshipoftheFather,Son,andHolySpirit—whoweredistinctinnumberfromoneanothereveniftheystoodtogetherasOne.

TheOppositionbyHippolytusandTertullianHippolytushadagooddealtosayabouttheshortcomingsofamodalistview,butforthemostpartitcamedowntoaverybasicpoint:scriptureportraysChristasaseparatebeingfromGodtheFather,sotheycannotbeoneandthesame.Andso,forexample,John1:18says,“NoonehasseenGodatanytime;theonlySonwhoisinthebosomoftheFather,hasmadehimknown.”Obviously,Christwasnotinhisownbosom.InMatthew11:27Christsays“allthingsaregivenmebytheFather,”andheclearlywasnotgivingthesethingstohimself.OnoccasionHippolytuspushesthepointofGreekgrammar: in John 10:30 Jesus says, “I and the Father are one.” As Hippolytus points out—in anancientequivalent totheviewthat it“alldependsonwhat themeaningofthewordis is”—theverbusedisthepluralare,notthesingularam.Jesusdoesnotsay“IamtheFather”or“theFatherandIamone.”Hesays“theFatherandIare[plural]one.”

EvenmoretrenchantarethebitingcommentsofTertullian,whomorethananypolemicistofhistimehadnoqualmsaboutattackinghisopponentswithalltheviciouswitathisdisposal.Hemocksthosewhosay,ineffect,thatGodtheFather“HimselfmadeHimselfaSontoHimself.”Inhiswords:

Itisonethingtohaveandanotherthingtobe.Forinstance,inordertobeahusband,Imusthaveawife;Icannevermyselfbemyownwife.Inlikemanner,inordertobeafather,Ihaveason,forInevercanbeasontomyself,andinordertobeason,Ihaveafather,itbeingimpossibleformeevertobemyownfather.(AgainstPraxeas10)

ForifImustbemyselfmyson,whoamalsoafather,Inowceasetohaveason,sinceIammyownson.Butbyreasonofnothavingason,sinceIammyownson,howcanIbeafather?ForIoughttohaveason,inordertobeafather.ThereforeIamnotason,becauseIhavenotafather,whomakesason.(AgainstPraxeas10)

HerewehaveaheresiologicalversionofAbbottandCostello’s“Who’sonFirst?”Tertullian,likeHippolytus,couldalsoappealtoscripture:

OnmysideIadvancethepassagewheretheFathersaidtotheSon,“ThouartmySon,thisdayhaveIbegottenThee.”IfyouwantmetobelieveHimtobeboththeFatherandtheSon,showmesomeotherpassagewhereitisdeclared,“TheLordsaiduntoHimself,‘IammyownSon,todayhaveIbegottenmyself.’”(AgainstPraxeas11)

TheResultantDoctrineoftheTrinityEven thoughHippolytus andTertullian vigorously attacked themodalist position, they didwant tohold on to the theological affirmations that created it in the first place. They, like their modalistopponents,agreedthatChristwasGod,andthatGodtheFatherwasGod,butthattherewasonlyoneGod. In order to retain this view while rejecting the modalist option, Hippolytus and Tertulliandeveloped the idea of the divine economy. The word economy in this usage does not refer to amonetary system but to a way of organizing relationships. In the divine economy there are threepersons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These are three distinct beings, but they arecompletelyunifiedinwillandpurpose.Aswewillseeinthenextchapter,attheendofthedaytheseaffirmationsaredifficult—onemightsay impossible—tohold inmindsimultaneously,but theyareaffirmednonethelessinawaythatattheveryleastcanbecalledparadoxical.Thethreeareone.AsHippolytusexpresseshisviewoftheeconomy:

TheFather indeed isOne, but there are TwoPersons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, theHolySpirit.TheFatherdecrees,theWordexecutes,andtheSonismanifested,throughwhomtheFatherisbelievedon....ItistheFatherwhocommands,andtheSonwhoobeys,andtheHolySpiritwhogivesunderstanding.TheFatherwhoisaboveall,andtheSonwhoisthroughall,andtheHolySpiritwhoisinall.AndwecannototherwisethinkofoneGod,butbybelievingintruthinFatherandSonandHolySpirit.(AgainstNoetus14)

Hippolytustermedthisthree-in-oneGodthetriad.Tertullian,asIhavenoted,calledittheTrinity.Inhisview,the“oneonlyGodhasalsoaSon,HisWord,whoproceededfromHimself,bywhomallthingsweremade.”ThisSonwas“bothmanandGod,thesonofmanandtheSonofGod”(AgainstPraxeas2).Bynow,asisclear,“sonofman”isnolongeranapocalypticterm,butadesignationofhumanity,as“SonofGod”isadesignationofdivinity.

ForTertullian,therelationshipoftheFatherandtheSonisworkedoutinthedivineeconomy,inwhich the Spirit too plays a distinctive role. This economy “distributes the Unity into a Trinity,placingintheirorderthethreePersons—theFather,theSon,andtheHolySpirit;threehowever,notin condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of onesubstanceandofonecondition,andofonepower,inasmuchasHeisoneGod”(AgainstPraxeas2).

Tertulliangoesontostressthatthethreewithinthegodheadare“susceptibleofnumberwithoutdivision.”Laterheindicatesthatthisis“theruleoffaith”thatChristiansadhereto:“TheFatherisone,andtheSonone,andtheSpiritone,andthattheyaredistinctfromeachother.”Thediversity,though,doesnotmean separation: “it isnotbydivision thatHe isdifferent,butbydistinction;because theFather isnot thesameas theSon,since theydifferone fromtheother in themodeof theirbeing”(AgainstPraxeas9).

EventhoughHippolytusandTertullianarewellonthewaytotheorthodoxdoctrineoftheTrinity,theyarenotthereyet.Thisiscleartoanyoneconversantwiththefourth-centurydebatesthatIdiscussinthenextchapterandwhoreadsfromTertullianthefollowing:“ThustheFatherisdistinctfromtheSon, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten isanother” (Against Praxeas 9). Later orthodox theologians would have found this view completelyinadequate. Instressing that theFatherwas“greater” than theSon,Tertullianarticulatedaviewthatwouldlaterbedeemedaheresy.Theology,intheseearlyyearsoftheformationofChristiandoctrine,couldnotstandstill.Itprogressedandgotmorecomplicated,sophisticated,andrefinedastimewenton.

TheChristologyofOrigenofAlexandriaWith no early thinker is this more clear than with Origen of Alexandria—the greatest Christiantheologianbeforethedebatesofthefourthcentury.Althoughhewasanorthodoxthinkerinhistime,hewascondemnedinlatercenturiesforperpetratingheresy.

Origen,bornandraisedinAlexandria,Egypt,wasunusuallyprecocious.Alreadyatayoungagehewasappointedheadof theschool thateducatedconverts, thefamouscatecheticalschool.Hewasbrilliant,learned,andmassivelywellread.Hewasalsoincrediblyprolific.Accordingtothechurchfather Jerome, Origen’s biblical commentaries, treatises, homilies, and letters totaled some twothousand.14

Origendelvedintotheologicalareasthathadnotyetbeenexaminedbyanyofhispredecessorsinthe faith, and as a result he came up with many distinctive and highly influential ideas. Latertheologiansquestionedhisorthodoxy,andhewasfaultedfordevelopingideasthatsubsequentlyledtothemajortheologicalschismthatIdiscussinthenextchapter,theAriancontroversy.Buthewasworkinginvirginterritory.Heacceptedtheorthodoxviewsofhisday—includingtheChristologicalperspectiveclaimingthatChristwasdivineandhumanatthesametime,andyetwasoneperson,nottwo.ButOrigenworkedoutthatdoctrineinawaythattookhimintotheologicalarenasneverbeforeexplored.

Amonghisabundantwritings,noneismoreinterestingthanhisbookOnFirstPrinciples,writtenaround229CEwhenOrigenwas just over fortyyearsold.Thiswas the first attemptwehaveof asystematic theology, that is, a methodical attempt to deal with the major theological views of thechurch,bothtoestablishwhat“all”Christiansweresupposedtobelieveandtospeculateonhowtounderstandtheconsiderablenumberofgrayareasnotyetworkedoutbytheorthodoxthinkersofhisday.

Origen begins his book by stressing that Christ is to be understood as God’sWisdom, whichexistedalwayswithGodtheFather(sinceGodalwayshadwisdom),withoutbeginning.ChristisalsoGod’sWord, since he is the one who communicates to the world all that is involved with God’sWisdom.ForOrigen,Christwas not only a preexistent divine being; hewas alwayswithGod theFather,andsinceheisGod’sownWisdomandWord,hewashimselfGodbynature,andalwayshasbeen.HewastheonethroughwhomGodcreatedallthings.

This,then,naturallyraisesthequestionofhowitisthat“thismightypowerofthedivinemajesty”canhavebecomeahuman,“tohaveexistedwithinthecompassofthatmanwhoappearedinJudea”(On First Principles 2.6.2).15 Origen himself stands in awe of the question of incarnation: “Thehuman understandingwith its narrow limits is baffled; and struckwith amazement at somighty awonderknowsnotwhichwaytoturn,whattoholdto,orwhithertobetakeitself.IfitthinksofGod,itseesaman;ifitthinksofaman,itbeholdsonereturningfromthedeadwithspoilsaftervanquishingthekingdomofdeath”(OnFirstPrinciples2.6.2).

Howexactlydidthisdivinefigurebecomehuman?How,inbecominghuman,diditnotdiminishitsdivinity?Andhowcanthehumanbedivinewithoutceasingtobehuman?Origen’ssolutionisoneoftheideasthatendedupmakinghimsusceptibletothechargeofheresy.Hecametobelieveinthepreexistenceofsouls.Inthisview,notonlydidChristpreexisthisappearanceonearthasahuman,sodideveryoneelse.16

Origen maintained that in the remote past, way back into eternity, God created an enormousnumberofsouls.HemadethesesoulsinordertocontemplateandparticipatewiththeSonofGod,who was God’s Word and Wisdom. But virtually all of these souls failed to do what they were

designed to do and fell away from their adoring contemplation of theWord andWisdomofGod.Somefellawayfurtherthanothers.Thosewhofellthefurthestbecamedemons.Thosewhofellnotso far became angels. And those who fell somewhere in between the two became human beings.Becomingademon,ahuman,oranangelwasakindofpunishmentforthesoul.Thatiswhythereareranksanddivisionsamongthesethreekindsofbeing,withsomegreaterthanothers.Amonghumans,thatiswhysomepeoplearebornwithbirthdefectsordisadvantagesinlife.ItisnotbecauseGodiscapriciousinhowhedealswithpeople;itisbecausesomepeoplearebeingpunishedmoreseverelyforthegreatersintheycommittedbeforecomingintohumanexistence.

Therewasonesoul,however,outofall themultitude,thatdidnotfallaway.UnderstandingthissoulisthekeytoOrigen’sChristology.ThisonesoulclungwithabsolutedevotiontotheWordandWisdomofGod ina stateof constant contemplation, “inaunion inseparableand indissoluble.” Itsunceasingcontemplationhadaprofoundeffectonthissoul.ThebestanalogythatOrigencandrawisofapieceofironplacedintotheblazingcoalsofaveryhotfire.Afteralongwhile,theiron—eventhough it isnot itself“fire”—nonetheless takesonall thecharacteristicsof fire.Touching itwouldproducenodifferent effect from touching the fire itself.That’swhathappened to this soul. It “wasforeverplacedintheWord,foreverintheWisdom,foreverinGod.”It,ineffect,became“Godinallitsactsandfeelingsandthoughts;andthereforeitcannotbecalledchangeableoralterable,sincebybeingceaselesslykindleditcametopossessunchangeabilitythroughitsunitywiththeWordofGod”(OnFirstPrinciples2.6.6).

ThisonesoulwasthemeansbywhichGodcouldestablishcontactswiththefallensoulswhohadbecomehumanasameansofpunishment.Forthisonesoul,thoroughlyinfusedwithChrist,theWordandWisdomofGod,becameahuman.Sinceitwas“atone”withGod(liketheironinthefire),initsincarnatestate,asthemanJesus,ittoocouldrightlybecalledtheSonofGod,theWisdomofGod,thepowerofGod,theChristofGod;andsinceitwashuman,itcouldbenamedJesusandbecalledtheSonofMan.

HowisitthatJesusChristcanontheonehandhavearationalsoul,likeallotherhumans,andyetstillbeamanifestationoftheSonofGodonearth?Itisbecause“thissoulwhichbelongstoChristsochose to love righteousness as to cling to it unchangeably and inseparably in accordancewith theimmensity of its love; the result being that by firmness of purpose, immensity of affection and aninextinguishablewarmth of love all susceptibility to change or alterationwas destroyed, andwhatformerly dependedupon thewillwas by influence of long customchanged into nature” (OnFirstPrinciples2.6.5).

Here then is a highly sophisticated, if greatly speculative, understandingof the incarnation andnatureofChrist,arguably themostadvancedearlyattempt tounderstandhowChristcouldbebothhumananddivine.Butittoowouldbesurpassedintheyearstocome,astheologiansworkedtorefinetheirviewsandtoruleoutofcourtanyviewsthat theyconsideredeitherhereticalorborderingonheretical.17

TheDeadEndsandBroadAvenuesofEarlyChristologiesWHEN THEHERESIOLOGISTS OF the second, third, and fourth centuries discussed the “heretics”whomtheyconsideredtobeathreateningpresenceintheirmidst, theydescribedthemasdemon-inspired,evil propagators of falsehood. The reality, though, is that virtually no heretic then or since hasconsideredhimselforherself tobea“heretic,” in thesense that theancientheresiologistsused the

term,asreferringtosomeonewhopropagatederror.Noonethinkstheyarepropagatingerror,justas no one thinks that their views are “wrong.”Anyonewho thinks their views arewrong changesthose views so that they become right. Almost by definition, everyone thinks that their views are“orthodox”—atleastinthetheologicalsenseof“rightteachings.”

Thisisoneofthereasonswhyhistoriansdonotusethetermsheresy,heterodoxy,andorthodoxyinthevalue-ladentheologicalsensetodescribewhichviewsarerightandwhicharewrong.Peoplealwaysthinktheyareright.Sohistoriansusethetermsinaneutralsense,todescribetheviewsthatendedupbeingdeclaredtruebythemajorityofbelievers—oratleastthemajorityofchurchleaders—andthosethatendedupbeingdeclaredfalse.

Butsinceeveryonewhopropoundedonevieworanother intheearlychurchbelievedthat theirviewswereright,thereisverylittlereasontosupposethatanyonemeanttocauseharmbyadvancingtheviewstheydid.VirtuallyeveryoneintheearlychurchwhomweknowofbelievedtheyweredoingtherightthingsandintendedtounderstandthesecretsoftheChristianreligioncorrectly.Buthistoryisnotalwayskindtogoodintentions.

Christians wanted to affirm certain beliefs. But in some instances, if those affirmations werepressed to an extreme, they did not allow Christians to affirm other beliefs that they or otherChristiansalsowantedtoaffirm.Wehaveseen,forexample, thatsomeChristianswantedtoaffirmthat Christwas human, but they did so to such an extent that they refused to acknowledge hewasdivine.Otherswanted toaffirm thathewasdivineanddidso to suchanextent that they refused toacknowledge hewas human. Others tried to get around the problem by claiming that he was twodifferentthings:partofhimwashumanandpartofhimwasdivine;butthissolutionbroughtdivisionanddisunityinsteadofharmonyandoneness.OtherswantedtoaffirmthatsincetherecanbeonlyoneGod,JesuscouldbedivineonlyifhehimselfwasthatoneGodcometoearth.ButthatsolutionendedupcausingChristians tosay thatJesusbegothimselfas thefather tohisownson,alongwithotherequallyconfusing formulations.Somesuperscholarsof thedaysuchasOrigen tried to resolve theproblems in more sophisticated ways, but these views also led to ideas that were later deemedobjectionable, such as the view that all of us have souls that preexisted andwere brought into theworldasaformofpunishment.

I should stress that these issues were not merely intellectual games that a group of cerebralChristiantheologianswereplaying.TheyevidentlymatteredtoordinaryChristiansaswell,andnotjustbecausetheywantedtogettheirbeliefs“right”;itwasalsobecausetheywantedtoknowhowtoworship properly.18 Should Jesus be worshiped? If so, should he be worshiped as God, or as asubsidiary divinity? Or is God the Father alone to be worshiped? And is the God who is to beworshipedthesameGodwhocreatedtheworld,orsomeotherdeity?IfJesusistobeworshipedandGodtheFatheristobeworshiped,howdoesoneavoidtheconclusionthattheChristiansworshiptwoGods?

Throughoutallthesedebates,weseeChristianthinkerstryingtofigureitallout,wantingtomakecertainaffirmations that they took tobegospel truth.What resultedwasnotsomuchconfusion,asconsiderablenuanceandsophistication.EventuallyaChristologyemerged thataffirmedatoneandthesametimeaspectsofwhatopposingheresiesaffirmed,whilerefusingtodenywhattheydenied.ThisledtoasignificantlyrefinedbuthighlyparadoxicalunderstandingofhowitisthatJesuscouldbeGod.

CHAPTER9

Ortho-ParadoxesontheRoadtoNicea

AFTERISTOPPEDBEINGanevangelicalChristian,IworshipedforyearsinliberalChristianchurches.Mostpeople in thesecongregationswerenot literalists: theydidnot thinkeither that theBiblewasliterallytrueorthatitwassomekindofinfalliblerevelationofthewordofGod.AndeventhoughtheysaidthetraditionalChristiancreedsaspartoftheirworshipservices,manyofthesepeopledidnotbelievewhattheysaid—asIlearnedfromtalkingwiththem.Moreover,manypeoplenevergaveapassing thoughteven towhat thewordsmeantorwhy theywere in thecreed in thefirstplace.Forexample,thefamousNiceneCreedbeginswiththewords:

WebelieveinoneGod,theFather,theAlmighty,makerofheavenandearth,ofallthatis,seenandunseen.

Inmyexperience,manyChristianswhosaythesewordshavenoideawhytheyarethere.Why,forexample,wouldthecreedstressthatthereis“oneGod”?PeopletodayeitherbelieveinGodortheydon’t. Butwho believes in twoGods?Why say there is only one? The reason has to dowith thehistorybehindthecreed.ItwasoriginallyformulatedpreciselyagainstChristianswhoclaimedthereweretwoGods,likethehereticMarcion;ortwelveorthirty-sixgods,likesomeoftheGnostics.Andwhysay thatGodhadmadeheavenandearth?Because lotsofhereticsclaimed thisworldwasnotcreatedbythetrueGodatall,andthecreedwasdesignedtoweedsuchpeopleoutofthechurch.

ThecreedespeciallyhasalottosayaboutChrist.

WebelieveinoneLord,JesusChrist.

Again,whysaythereisoneofhim?Howmanycouldtherebe?Here,too,itisbecauseGnosticChristianswere saying thatChristwas several beings, or at least two: a divinebeing and ahumanbeingwhowereonlytemporarilyunited.ThecreedcontinueswithalongstringofaffirmationsaboutChrist:

theonlySonofGod,eternallybegottenoftheFather,GodfromGod,LightfromLight,trueGodfromtrueGod,begotten,notmade,ofoneBeingwiththeFather.Throughhimallthingsweremade.Forusandforoursalvationhecamedownfromheaven:bythepoweroftheHolySpirit

hebecameincarnatefromtheVirginMary,andwasmademan.ForoursakehewascrucifiedunderPontiusPilate;hesuffereddeathandwasburied.Onthethirddayheroseagaininaccordancewiththescriptures;heascendedintoheavenandisseatedattherighthandoftheFather.Hewillcomeagaininglorytojudgethelivingandthedead,andhiskingdomwillhavenoend.

Everyoneofthesestatementswasputintothecreedtowardoffhereticswhohaddifferentbeliefs,forexample, thatChristwasa lesserdivinebeingfromGod theFather,or thathewasnot reallyahuman,or thathissufferingwasnot important forsalvation,or thathiskingdomwouldeventuallycometoanend—allofthemnotionsheldbyoneChristiangrouporanotherintheearlycenturiesofthechurch.

Buttheseviewstendtobefarlessimportanttoliberal-mindedChristianstoday,atleasttheonesinmy experience.On several occasions over the past few years,when giving lectures in liberal andopenchurchesthroughoutthecountry,Ihavesaidthatoftheentirecreed,Icansayonlyonepartingood faith: “he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.” For me,personally,notbeingabletosaythe(restofthe)creed—sinceIdon’tbelieveit—preventsmefromjoining such congregations.Butmembers of these congregations—and even clergy—often tellmethatthisshouldnotbeanobstacle.Alotofthemdon’tbelieveiteither!Atleastnotinanyliteralway.

Thiswouldneverhavebeentrueinthefourth-centurycontextinwhichsuchexpressionsoffaithwereinitiallyproduced.Forthechurchleaderswhoformulatedthem,notonlytheverybasicliteralmeaningof these statementsmattered (Godexists;Christ ishisSon;hewasGod;buthebecameahuman;hediedforothersandrosefromthedead;etc.);thedeepernuancesmatteredaswell—everywordwastobetakenas literallytrueandimportant,andcontrarystatementsweretoberejectedasboth heretical and dangerous. Heretics with slightly different views were in danger of eternaldamnation.ThiswasseriousbusinessinthetheologicalenvironmentofthefourthChristiancentury.WithrespecttoChristology,aswewillseeinthischapter,itwasconcludedthatChristwasaseparatebeing fromGod the Father,who had always existed alongsideGod,whowas equalwithGod andalways had been equal with God, who became a human, not in part, but completely, while notabandoninghisstatusandpowerasGod.Thisviewseemsinternallyinconsistentandcontradictory—howcanChristbeGodandGodtheFatherbeGodifthereisonlyoneGod?AndhowcanChristbefullydivineandfullyhumanatthesametime?Wouldn’theneedtobepartlyhumanandpartlydivine?

Rather thanseeing thesestatementsas inherentlycontradictory,perhaps it ismoreuseful to seethem as the paradoxes that resulted from the debates over Christ’s being. And since they are theparadoxes thatcame to figuresoprominently inspecificallyorthodoxChristianity, Ihavecoinedanewtermforthem.Icallthemortho-paradoxes.Asawayofsummingupourdiscussiontothispoint,Ilayouttheseparadoxesingreaterdetailbeforelookingatsomeoftheimportanttheologiansintheearlychurchwhohelpedtoshapethem,leadinguptothefirstmajorchurchcouncilthatmetinordertoresolvesomeoftheseissues,thefamousCouncilofNiceain325CE.

TheOrtho-Paradoxes

THE PARADOXES OF ORTHODOX Christianity emerged from two brutal facts. First, some passages ofscripture appear to affirm completely different views. Orthodox thinkers realized that it wasnecessarytoaffirmallofthesepassages,eventhoughtheyappearedtobeatoddswithoneanother.But affirming these different passages, at one and the same time, necessarily led to paradoxicalaffirmations.Second, different groups of heretics stated views in direct opposition to one another,and the orthodox thinkers knew that they had to reject each of these views. This meant that theorthodox had to attack a view from one side as wrong while also attacking the opposite view aswrong.Butbothoftwoopposingviewscannotbecompletelywrong,ornothingisright,andsotheorthodox—inattackingopposingviews—hadtoaffirmpartofeachviewasbeingrightandtherestasbeingwrong.Theresultwasaparadoxthateachoftheopposingsideswaswronginwhatitdeniedbutrightinwhatitaffirmed.It’salittlehardtogetone’smindaroundwithoutconcreteexamples,soInowexplainhowbothofthesefactorsledtotheresultantortho-paradoxes—onehavingtodowiththenatureofChrist (that is,whetherhewasGodormanorboth) and theotherhaving todowith thenatureofthegodhead(thatis,howChristcouldbeGodifonlyGodtheFatherwasGod).

TheChristologicalOrtho-ParadoxWhenitcomestothenatureofChrist—thequestionofChristology—onecanpointtoclearpassagesinscripturethatsayheisGod.Aswehaveseen,forexample,intheGospelofJohn,Jesusdeclares:“BeforeAbrahamwas,Iam”(John8:58,invokingthenameofGodfromExod.3);“IandtheFatherareone (10:30); “Whoeverhas seenmehas seen theFather” (14:9).Andat the endof theGospel,doubtingThomasdeclaresthatJesusis“myLordandmyGod”(20:28).

Butotherpassagesof theBible say that Jesus ishuman.Andso, John1:14says that“theWordbecamefleshanddweltamongus.”First John1:1–4claims thatChristcanbeseen,andheard,andhandled. First John 4:2–3 indicates that anyone who denies that “Christ came in the flesh” is anantichrist.And,ofcourse,throughouttheGospelsoftheNewTestamentJesusisportrayedashuman:heisborn,hegrowsup,heeats,hedrinks,hesuffers,hebleeds,andhedies.

The resulting ortho-paradox was driven by the positions that the orthodox were compelled tostake out when opposing the contradictory views of their opponents and the biblical texts. Theadoptionists were right to affirm that Jesus was human but wrong to deny that he was God; thedocetistswererighttoaffirmthatJesuswasdivinebutwrongtodenythathewashuman;theGnosticswere right toaffirm thatChristwasbothdivineandhumanbutwrong todeny thathewasasinglebeing.

Andso,ifyouputtogetheralltheorthodoxaffirmations,theresultistheortho-paradox:ChristisGod; Christ is a man; but he is one being, not two. This became the standard Christologicalaffirmationoftheorthodoxtradition.

Aswewillsee, thisdidnotsettle the issueofwhoChristwasfor theorthodox.It insteadledtomorequestions,and“falsebeliefs”continuedtopropagate—notagainstanyofthestandardorthodoxclaims, but against variouswaysofunderstanding these claims.As timewent on, heresies becameincreasinglydetailed,andtheorthodoxaffirmationsbecameincreasinglyparadoxical.

TheTheologicalOrtho-ParadoxThe theological debates more broadly dealt with the implications of orthodox Christology forunderstandingthenatureofGod—ifChristisGod,andtheSpiritisGod,yetGodtheFatheraloneisGod,thenisGodonebeing,ortwo,orthree?

Hereagain,somescripturalpassagesseemtostandatoddswithoneanother.Isaiah45:21isquiteexplicit:“There isnoothergodbesidesme,arighteousGodandaSavior; there isnoonebesidesme.”On the other hand, in some passages,God is spoken of in the plural. InGenesis,whenGodcreates thefirsthuman,hesays,“Letusmakehumankindinour image,accordingtoour likeness”(1:26).ButtowhomisGodtalkingwhenhesays“us”and“our”?InPsalm45:6,Godisspeakingtosomeoneelseandsays,“Yourthrone,OGod,enduresforeverandever.”WhoisthisotherGod?InPsalm110:1wearetold,“TheLORDsaystomyLord,‘SitatmyrighthanduntilImakeyourenemiesyourfootstool.’”IstheremorethanoneLord?Howcantherebeif,asIsaiahsays,thereisonlyone?

Morespecifically, ifChrist isGod,andGod theFather isGod, inwhat sense is thereonlyoneGod?And ifoneadds theHolySpirit into themix,howdoesoneescape theconclusioneither thatChristandtheSpiritarenotGod,orthattherearethreeGods?Intheend,theorthodoxsettledfortheparadoxoftheTrinity:therearethreepersons,allofwhomareGod,butthereisonlyoneGod.OneGod,manifestinthreepersons,whoaredistinctinnumberbutunitedinessence.Thistoobecamethestandarddoctrineoftheorthodoxtradition,andashappenedwiththeChristologicalortho-paradox,italsoledtofurtherdisputes,hereticalinterpretations,andnuancedrefinements.

FortherestofthischapterweexaminesomeoftheChristianthinkerswhostoodintheorthodoxtradition to see how they worked out these various Christological and theological views in theirwritings.IdonottrytocovereveryimportantorthodoxtheologianoftheearlyChristiancenturies,andIdonotmeantosuggestthatthefiguresIdiscussherewereawareofeachother ’swork.Butthesethinkersallstandwithintheverybroadstreamof“orthodox”tradition.IntheprecedingchapterwesawhowHippolytusandTertullianhammeredoutcertainorthodoxviews.Nowwelookatarangeofother thinkers standing in the sameorthodox line.We start at a relatively early point, even beforeHippolytus,inthemid-secondcentury,andmovefromtherethroughtheologiansallthewayuptothefamousCouncil ofNicea, convened by the emperorConstantine in 325CE in order to resolve theoutstandingtheologicalcontroversiesofhisday.

JustinMartyrJUSTIN CAN RIGHTLY BE considered the first true intellectual and professional scholar in the church.BeforebecomingaChristian,hewasalreadytrainedinphilosophy,andhehimselfnarrateshowhecametobeaChristianinanautobiographicalaccountinoneofhissurvivingworks.OriginallyfromPalestine, Justinmoved toRome in themiddle of the second century in order to set up a kind ofChristian philosophical school, possibly around 140 CE. His surviving works include two“apologies.”Inthiscontextanapologydoesnotmean“sayingyou’resorry.”ItcomesfromaGreekwordthatmeansdefenseandisusedasatechnicaltermtorefertoanintellectualdefenseofthefaithwithregardtothechargesleveledagainstitbyitsenemies.WealsohavefromhishandabookcalledtheDialoguewithTrypho,inwhichJustinrecordsaconversationthatheallegedlyhad—itispossiblyfictitious—withaJewishscholaroverthelegitimacyoftheclaimsoftheChristiansthatJesuswasthemessiahanticipatedbytheJewishscriptures.

EventuallyJustinwasarrestedandcondemnedforhisChristianbeliefsandactivities.Wedonothave a reliable account of his trial and execution, but it is clear that hewas condemned and diedaroundtheyear165—earninghimthesobriquetMartyr.

The orthodox of later times considered Justin to be a proponent of their views.As onewouldexpect,hisexpositionoftheologyishighlyintelligent—hewas,afterall,aphilosopher—butbylater

standards it came to seem rather unsophisticated and unnuanced. Theology takes a long time todevelop,andonceitdoes,earlierviews,evenintelligentlyexpressedones,canappearunrefinedandevenprimitive.

Here we focus on our central concern and consider what Justin had to say specifically aboutChristandhischaracter.JustinheldtotheviewthatChristwasapreexistentdivinebeingwhowas,inhiswords, the “first begotten ofGod” (1Apology 46).1 Christwas begotten—that is, brought intoexistence—beforethecreationoftheworld(2Apology5),andintimehebecameahumanbeingforthesakeofbelieversandinordertodestroytheevildemonswhowereopposedtoGod(2Apology6).

There are two principal ways that Justin understands Christ as a divine being, both of whichharken back to earlier views we have already explored. Justin develops these views in moresophisticatedwaysthanseenintheNewTestamentitself.HesawChristbothasthepreincarnateAngeloftheLordandastheLogos(Word)ofGodmadeflesh.

ChristasanAngelofGodIn several places throughout his writings Justin speaks of Christ as the Angel of the Lord whoappeared in the Old Testament. In Chapter 2 we saw that there is some ambiguity in the famouspassage ofMoses and the burning bush: the “Angel of the Lord” speakswithMoses, but then thenarrative shifts to indicate that in fact it is “theLord”who is speakingwith him. Justin is keen toexplain this textual conundrum in Christological terms. The reason this divine figure is both theAngeloftheLordandtheLord,atthesametime,isthatitisnotGodtheFatherwhoisthereinthebush,butitisChrist,whoisfullydivine.FirstJustinestablishesthattheangelisnomereangel,butGod:“DoyounotseethatHewhomMosesspeaksofasanAngelwhoconversedwithhimfromthefierybushisthesamewho,beingGod,signifiestoMosesthatHeistheGodofAbraham,ofIsaac,andofJacob?”(Dialogue59).Butthenhearguesthatthis“God”couldnothavebeenGodtheFather:“Noonewith even the slightest intelligencewoulddare to assert that theCreator andFatherof allthingsleftHissupercelestialrealmstomakehimselfvisibleinalittlespotonearth”(Dialogue60).AndsowhowasthisGod?ItwasChrist,theangelwholaterwastobecomehuman.

ChristwasalsooneofthethreeangelswhoappearedtoAbrahamattheoaksofMamreinGenesis18,anotherpassagewehaveconsidered.Becausethis“angel”isalsoa“man”butiscalled“theLord,”it is clear to Justin: “There exists and ismentioned in Scripture anotherGod and Lord under theCreator of all things who is also called an Angel.” This one “appeared to Abraham, Jacob, andMoses,andiscalledGod,[and]isdistinctfromGod,theCreator;distinct,thatis,innumber,butnotinmind”(Dialogue56).ThesepatriarchsdidnotseeGodtheFatherbut“GodtheSon...Hisangel”(Dialogue127).

GodtheSon,then,istheonetowhomGodtheFatherisspeakingintheOldTestamentwhenhesays,“Letusmakehumankindinourownimage”(Gen.1:26);heistheonetowhomGodspeaksinthepsalmswhenhesays,“Yourthrone,OGod,enduresforeverandever”(Ps.45:6);andheistheonetowhom the text referswhen it says “TheLORD says tomyLord, ‘Sit atmy right hand . . .’” (Ps.110:1).

ChristastheLogosofGodForJustin,ChristwasnotonlytheAngeloftheLord,however;hewasalsotheWord(Logos)ofGodwhobecamehuman.ItappearsclearthatJustinwasinfluencedbytheChristologyfoundintheGospelof John, a book that he rarely, if ever, actually quotes, surprisingly enough. But Justin’s Logos

ChristologyismoreadvancedandphilosophicallydevelopedthanthatfoundintheFourthGospel.JustinmaintainsthattheLogosofGodisthe“reason”thatcanbefoundwithinanyonewhouses

reasontounderstandtheworld(1Apology5).ThismeansthatallhumanshaveashareintheLogos,since all humans use reason. But some have a greater share of it than others. Philosophers, inparticular,areskilledinusingtheirreason.ButevenphilosophersdonothaveafullknowledgeofGod’sLogos.If theydid, theywouldnotspendsomuchtimecontradictingoneanother(2Apology10). Still, some philosopherswere closely attuned toGod’s truth, as revealed to them through theLogos within them; this would include above all that great Greek philosopher Socrates. For thisreason,JustinmaintainedthataphilosopherlikeSocratesshouldbeconsideredtobeapre-ChristianChristian(1Apology46).

Mostimportant,though,thisLogoswasknowntoandproclaimedbytheHebrewprophetsoftheOldTestament(2Apology10).Anditeventuallybecameahumanbeing,JesusChrist(1Apology1.5).Christ,then,istheincarnateLogosthatcreatedtheworldandmanifesteditselfintheworldinhumanreasonthatseekstounderstandtheworld.ItisinChristhimselfthat“reason”isfullyincarnate.ThosewhoacceptandbelieveinChrist,therefore,haveafullershareofLogos/reasonthananyoneelse—even the greatest philosophers of antiquity. Moreover, since he is the incarnation of God’s ownLogos,ChristdeservestobeworshipedalongwithGod(1Apology6).

JustinwasespeciallyconcernedtodealwiththequestionofwhetherChristisinanysenseabeingdistinctfromGodtheFather,andifso,howoneistoimaginetherelationshipofChrist,theincarnateWord,toGodtheFatherhimself.InoneplaceJustinconsidersChristastheWordinrelationtowordsweourselvesuse.Whenwespeakaword,insomesensethatwordhasanexistenceindependentofus(aswediscoverwhensomeonemisunderstandsawordwehavespoken);ontheotherhand,thewordweutterowesitsexistenceentirelytous,sincewearetheoneswhouttertheword.TheLogosofGodislikethat:itcomesforthfromGod,andsobelongsentirelytoGod,butittakesonitsownkindofexistenceonceitcomesforth.

InanotherplaceJustinlikensChrist’srelationshiptoGodtoafirethatisusedtostartanotherfire.Thesecondfireexistsindependentlyofthefirst,butitcouldnothavecomeintoexistencewithouttheother.Moreover,whenitisstarted,thenewfiredoesnotdiminishanythingofthefirstfire,makingitlessthanitwastobeginwith.Thefirstfireisjustthesameasitwasbefore.Butthesecondfireisjustasfullyfireas thefirst.Andthat’showit iswithGodandChrist.ChristcameforthfromGodandbecamehisownbeing,andyetGodwasnotdiminishedintheslightestwhenthathappened(Dialogue61).ThusJustinstressesthatChristisaseparatebeingfromGodandis“numericallydistinctfromtheFather”(Dialogue129);butChristisatthesametimefullyGod.

Onemight suspect that Justin hasmoved into trickywaterswith these explanations, since theycouldbetakentomeanthatChristdidnotalwaysexist(aviewthatlatercametobedeclaredaheresy)andthathewasakindofsecondGodcreatedbyGodtheFatherandwhowas,therefore,subordinatetoGodtheFather(viewsalsodeclaredheresies).Justinislivingbeforelatertheologiansworkedoutthenuancesoftheseviews.

There is somequestion, in fact, aboutwhether Justin can rightly be thought of as embracing adoctrineoftheTrinity.Hedoesnotyettalkaboutthethreedivinebeings,Father,Son,andSpirit,asbeingallequalandthe“three”being“one.”HedoessaythatGodisworshipedfirst,theSonsecond,andthepropheticSpiritthird(1Apology1.13).Butthisagainseemstosuggestahierarchyofdivinity,withGodatthetopandtheothersinlowerplacesbeneathhim;andelsewhereJustinclaimsthatGodaloneis“unchangingandeternal”andtheSonissubordinatetotheFather(1Apology13).Sotoohe

indicatesthatChristiansworshipGod,theSon,angels,andtheSpirit—clearlynotaTrinitarianview(1Apology13).Ifnothingelse,onecansaythatJustinrepresentsadevelopmenttowardtheorthodoxChristologicalandTrinitarianparadoxes.

NovatianMOVING THE CLOCK FORWARD a hundred years to the middle of the third century, we come to thewritingsofaleaderoftheRomanchurchnamedNovatian(210–278CE).LikeHippolytus,whomwemetinthepreviouschapter,Novatianwastheheadofaschismaticmovementinthechurchandwaselectedasakindofantipope.Histheology,however,wascompletelyorthodoxinitsday.Novatian’smostfamousworkisatreatiseontheTrinity,inwhichheforeshadowsideasthattheologiansafterhistimedeveloped;hestillhasnotworkedouttheimplicationsofaTrinitarianviewwiththenuancethatlater thinkers would. He, like Justin before him, still understands Christ to be a divine beingsubordinatetoGodtheFather.ButhischiefconcernistoshowthatChristisfullyGodandyetisnotthesameastheFather.Inotherwords,hedevelopshisviewsinrelationtotheheresiesthatwerestillaffectinghisownday,adoptionismandmodalism.

Insomewaystheseheresieswereat theoppositeendsof thetheologicalspectrum,oneof themclaimingthatChristwasnotGodbynatureatall,butonlyhuman,andtheotherclaimingthatChristwasnotonlyGod,butwasactuallyGodtheFather.Atthesametime,onecouldarguethattheverysamemonotheisticconcernwasdrivingbothoftheseverydifferentChristologies.Theadoptionists,whosaidthatChristwasnotbynatureGod,didsoinparttopreservetheideathattherewasonlyoneGod;thesameconcernlaybehindtheviewofthemodalists—thatChristwasindeedGodbynature,becausehewasGodtheFathermadeflesh,soheretootherewasonlyoneGod.Novatiansawthesetwocontraryviewsas fundamentally related,as flip sidesof the samehereticalcoin.Asheputs it,Christhimselfwascrucifiedbetweenthesetwothieves(ofheresy).

Novatian is quite explicit that he is opposing these views that were intent on preserving theonenessofGod.Atonepointhestatesthatwhentheheretics“perceivedthatitwaswrittenthat‘Godisone,’theythoughtthattheycouldnototherwiseholdsuchanopinionthanbysupposingthatitmustbebelievedeitherthatChristwasmanonlyorreallyGodtheFather”(Trinity30).2Andsobothviewswere driven by thosewho objected to the idea that Christ could be a separateGod fromGod theFather,sinceotherwisetherewouldbe“twogods.”

Inresponse,NovatianwantstoemphasizethatChristindeedisGod,thatheisdistinctfromGodtheFather,butthatheisinperfectunitywithhim:“[Christ],then,whentheFatherwilledit,proceededfromtheFather,andHewhowas in theFathercameforthfromtheFather;andHewhowas in theFatherbecauseHewasoftheFather,wassubsequentlywiththeFather,becauseHecameforthfromtheFather”(Trinity31).

The complete unity ofChristwithGod is qualified, however, because forNovatian, as for theorthodox before him (but not so much afterward), Christ is not actually equal with God, but issubordinatetohim,adivinebeingwhocameintoexistenceatacertaintime,begottenbyGodatsomepointbefore thecreation.This isbecause therecannotbe, inNovatian’sview, twodifferentbeingswho are both “unborn” or “unbegotten” and “without beginning” and “invisible.” Novatian’sreasoninghasacertainforcetoit:“Forif[Christ]hadnotbeenborn—comparedwithHimwhowasunborn, anequalitybeingmanifested inboth—Hewouldmake twounbornbeings, and thuswouldmaketwoGods”(Trinity31).

Verymuch thesame thingcanbesaid ifhewas“notbegotten” like theFather,orwas“formedwithout beginning as the Father” or “invisible” like the Father. In all these cases, Christ wouldnecessarilybe“equal”withtheFather,whichwouldmeanthattherewouldnotbeoneGodbut“twoGods.”Andthat,forNovatian,cannotbe.Asaresult,ChristisbestseenasasubordinatedivinitywhowasbegottenbyGodtheFatherbeforethecreation:

[Christ] therefore isGod,butbegotten for thisspecialresult, thatHeshouldbeGod.He isalso theLord,butborn for thisverypurposeoftheFather,thatHemightbeLord.HeisalsoanAngel,buthewasdestinedoftheFatherasanAngel...Forall thingsbeing subjected to [Christ] as theSonby theFather,whileHeHimself,with those thingswhichare subjected toHim,issubjectedtoHisFather.HeisindeedprovedtobetheSonofHisFather,butHeisfoundtobebothLordandGodofallelse.(Trinity31)

NovatianwasmoreorlessdriventothisviewbyhisoppositiontoheresiesthatdeclaredthatsincetherecanbeonlyoneGod,thenChristeitherwasnotGodorwasGodtheFatherhimself.Thenaturalsolution, then,was to say thatChrist indeedwasGod, but there are not twoGods because hewasbegotten by God (not eternal with him) and subordinate to him (rather than equal with him). InNovatian’sday,thisviewcouldcountasorthodoxy.Butitwasnotlongbeforethisorthodoxpositioncametobedeclaredaheresy.Initsstead, theorthodoxtheologiansof thefourthcenturyassertedamorecompleteparadox:thatChristwasfully,notpartially,God;thathehadalwaysexisted;andthathewasequalwithGodtheFather.Buttogetherthey,alongwiththeSpirit,madeupjustoneGod.

DionysiusofRomeASTEPTOWARDWHATwastobecometheestablishedorthodoxviewcanbeseeninashortletterbythebishopofRome,Dionysius,whowaswritingjustaboutadecadeafterNovatian(ca.260CE).Hisletterwas directed to a bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, who happened to have the same name. This otherDionysius had taken a strong stand against modalism—which he called by the name of the mostfamous of the later modalists, a man named Sabellius (so sometimes modalism was termedSabellianism).ButinopposingtheSabellianpositionthattherewasonlyoneGodinthreemodesofexistence,DionysiusofAlexandriahadgonetoofarintheotherdirection,atleastintheopinionofDionysiusofRome.Hewas indangerof claiming that theFather,Son, andSpiritwere sodistinctfromoneanotherthattheycouldbeseenasthreedifferentGods.Butanykindofpolytheism—orinthiscase,tritheism—wasaheresytobeavoided.SoDionysiusofRomewrotealettertohisnamesakeinAlexandria tohelpprovidegreaternuance tohis theologicalviews,affirmingthatChrist isGodandisaseparatebeingfromGodtheFather,butissounitedwithhimthattheyformanabsoluteunity.

Dionysius of Rome states the situation that he has heard about in the theological disputesoccurringinAlexandria:“Ilearnthattherearesomeofyou...whoare,onemightsay,diametricallyopposedtotheviewsofSabellius;heblasphemouslysaysthattheSonistheFatherandtheFathertheSon,while they [thosewho oppose Sabellius] in amanner preach threeGods, dividing the sacredMonadinto threesubstancesforeigntoeachotherandutterlyseparate.”3 In response,DionysiusofRome gives his own corrective, which stresses that the three are one: “TheDivineWordmust ofnecessitybeunitedtotheGodoftheUniverse,andtheHolySpiritmusthavehishabitationandabodeinGod;thusitisabsolutelynecessarythattheDivineTriadbesummedupandgatheredintoaunity,broughtasitweretoanapex,andbythatUnityImeantheallsovereignGodoftheUniverse.”

Threebeingsmakeupa“DivineTriad.”But theyare soharmonious that theycanbe seenasa“unity,”andthisunityisitselfthe“Godoftheuniverse.”Thisunity,forDionysiusofRome,signifiesthattheSonofGodisnotacreaturemadeorbegottenbyGod,butthatheiseternalwithGodandthathesharesalltheattributesofGodtheFather,ashisWord,andWisdom,andPower.ForDionysiusofRomethelogicforthisiscompelling:“foriftheSoncameintobeingtherewas[atime]whentheseattributeswerenot;thereforetherewasatimewhenGodwaswithoutthem;whichismostabsurd.”

Byrefusingto“divideintothreedeitiesthewonderfulanddivineMonad,”andyetinsistingthatthey are in fact three different beings united together into one, Dionysius reaches the desiredtheological result: “For thus both theHolyTriad and the holy preaching of theMonarchywill bepreserved.”

Obviously, we are moving into some deep theological waters. There need to be three divinebeings.But the threeneed tobeone,not three.Thequestionofhow this canbebecame themajortheologicalobsessionofthefourthcentury.ItallstartedwithacontroversyinAlexandria,inwhichapriesthadseriousdisagreementsonthematterwithhisbishop.ThepriestembracedaviewthatseemsverysimilartothatendorsedearlierbytheorthodoxNovatianandothersintheorthodoxtradition,butitcametobecondemnedasoneofChristianity’smostnotoriousheresies.ThisheresywascalledArianism,namedafterthepriestwithwhomitallegedlyoriginated,Arius.

AriusofAlexandriaARIUS WAS BORN AROUND 260 CE, right about the time Dionysius of Rome and Dionysius ofAlexandriawere engaged in their back-and-forth over questions ofChristology.Arius came fromLibyabuteventuallymovedtothecityofAlexandriaandbecameintimatelyinvolvedwiththevibrantChristiancommunitythere.In312hewasordainedasapriestandwasplacedinchargeofhisownchurch.InthatcapacityAriuswasanswerabletothebishopofAlexandria,who,formostofhistimethere,wasamannamedAlexander.

ThecontroversyoverArius’steachingsbrokeoutin318CE.4Weknowaboutthedisputefromaletter written in 324 by none other than the Roman emperor Constantine, who had converted toChristianityinthesameyearAriuswasordained(312CE)andwho,intheyearsthatfollowed,becameincreasingly committed to seeing that the Christian church should become unified, in no smallmeasurebecausehesawthechurchasapotentiallyunifyingforceinhisfragmentedempire.By324the churchwas not at all unified, andmuch of the rancor and debate focused on the controversialteachingsofArius.

AccordingtoConstantine’sletter,BishopAlexanderhadaskedhispriestsfortheiropinionsaboutthe theology expressed in a particular passage in theOldTestament.Constantine does not indicatewhich passage thiswas, but scholars have plausibly argued that itwas Proverbs 8, a textwe haveencounteredonanumberofoccasions, inwhichWisdom(whomChristians identifiedasChrist) isportrayedasspeaking,indicatingthatshewasafellowworkerwithGodinthebeginning,atthetimeofcreation.

Arius’s interpretationwasone thatmaywellhavebeenacceptable in the theological climateoforthodox Christianity during the century or so before his day, but by the early fourth century itprovedtobehighlycontroversial.He,likeotherinterpreters,understoodtheWisdomofGodtobethesameastheWordofGodandtheSonofGod—thatis,thepreexistentdivineChristwhowaswithGodat thebeginningof thecreation.But inArius’sopinion,Christhadnotalwaysexisted.Hehad

comeintoexistenceatsomepointintheremotepastbeforethecreation.Originally,Godhadexistedalone,andtheSonofGodcameintoexistenceonlylater.Hewas,afterall,“begotten”byGod,andthatimplied—toAriusandotherswhowerelike-minded—thatbeforehewasbegotten,hedidnotyetexist. One further implication of this view is thatGod the Father had not always been the Father;instead,hebecametheFatheronlywhenhebegothisSon.

In Arius’s view, everything except for God himself had a beginning. Only God is “withoutbeginning.”AndthismeansthatChrist—theWord(Logos)ofGod—isnotfullyGodinthewaythatGodis.HewascreatedinGod’sownimagebyGodhimself;andsoChristbearsthetitleGod,butheisnot the“true”God.OnlyGodhimself is.Christ’sdivinenaturewasderived from theFather;hecameintobeingatsomepointbeforetheuniversewasmade,andsoheisacreationorcreatureofGod.Inshort,Christwasakindofsecond-tierGod,subordinatetoGodandinferiortoGodineveryrespect.

Aswehaveseen,ChristologicalviewssuchasthiswerenotmerelyacademicexercisesbutwereconnectedatadeeplevelwithChristianworship.ForAriusandhisfollowersitwasindeedrighttoworshipChrist.ButwasChristtobeworshipedasonewhowasonaparwithGodtheFather?Theiranswerwasclearandstraightforward:absolutelynot.ItistheFatherwhoisaboveallthings,eventheSon,byaninfinitedegree.

BishopAlexanderwasnotatallpleasedwith this responseandconsideredsuchviewshereticalanddangerous.Intheyear318or319hedeposedAriusfromhispositionandexcommunicatedhimalongwithabout twentyotherchurchleaderswhowereArius’ssupporters.Asagrouptheseexileswent toPalestine,andthere theyfoundseveralchurchleadersandtheologianswhowerewillingtosupport them in their cause, including a figure with whom we are already familiar: Eusebius ofCaesarea.

BeforeexplainingthealternativeviewembracedbyBishopAlexander,anddescribingtheeventsthatleduptotheCouncilofNiceathatEmperorConstantinecalledtotrytoresolvetheseissues,IsetforthArius’steachingsinsomeofhisownwords.Youmayhavenoticedthatweveryrarelyhavethewritingsofthehereticsthemselves.Inmostinstanceswehavetorelyonwhattheorthodoxopponentsofhereticssaid,sincetheheretics’ownwritingsweregenerallydestroyed.WithArius,weareinthehappypositionofhavingsomeofhisownwords,someof theminlettershewroteandothers inakindofpoeticworkheproducedcalledtheThalia.Unfortunately,theactualtextoftheThaliaisnotpreserved for us in a surviving manuscript, but it is quoted by a very famous church father ofAlexandria, Athanasius. And it appears that when Athanasius quotes these passages, he does soaccurately. I present a few that showArius’s particular views of Christ as not equalwithGod theFatherbutfullysubservienttohim:

[TheFather]alonehasneitherequalnorlike,nonecomparableinglory.

[TheSon]hasnothingpropertoGodinhisessentialpropertyForneitherisheequalnoryetconsubstantialwithhim.

ThereisaTrinitywithgloriesnotalike;Theirexistencesareunmixablewitheachother;Oneismoregloriousthananotherbyaninfinityofglories.

ThustheSonwhowasnot,butexistedatthepaternalwill,IsonlybegottenGod,andheisdistinctfromeverythingelse.5

UnliketheunbegottenFather,Christ,theSonofGod,isthe“begottenGod.”Heisgreaterthanallelse.But he is removed from the greatness of the Father by an “infinity of glories” and so is not“comparableinglory”totheFather.

In a letter defending his views to Bishop Alexander, Arius is even more explicit about hisunderstandingoftherelationshipofGodandChrist:“WeknowthereisoneGod,theonlyunbegotten,onlyeternal,onlywithoutbeginning,onlytrue,whoonlyhasimmortality....BeforeeverlastingageshebegothisuniqueSon,throughwhomhemadetheagesandallthings.Hebegothim...aperfectcreatureofGod,butnotasoneofthecreatures—anoffspring,butnotasoneofthingsbegotten.”6

And so, Arius maintained that there were three separate divine beings—which he calls by thetechnical name hypostases but which now, in this context, simplymeans something like “essentialbeings”or“persons.”TheFatheralonehasexistedforever.TheSonwasbegottenbyGodbeforetheworldwascreated.Butthismeansthathe“isneithereternalnorcoeternal...withtheFather.”Godisabove,beyond,andgreaterthanallthings,includingChrist.

AlexanderofAlexandriaWE CONSIDER BRIEFLY THE alternative view affirmed, with some vehemence, by Arius’s bishopAlexander,whowastheheadoftheAlexandrianchurchduringaneventfulperiod,313–328CE.HeisbestknownforspearheadingtheousterofAriusandhisfollowers,notonlyfromhisownchurchofAlexandriabutfromcommunionwiththeorthodoxcommunitiesthroughouttheChristianworld.

We know of Alexander ’s own Christological views from a letter he wrote to his namesake,AlexanderthebishopofConstantinople,inwhichhecomplains,somewhatunfairly,ofAriusandhiscolleaguesbecausetheyallegedly“denythedivinityofourSaviorandproclaimthatheisequaltoallhumans”(LetterofAlexander,v.4).7Thisclaimisexaggeratedandnotatallaccurate:AriusaffirmedChrist’sdivinityandstatedemphatically thatChristwassuperior toallhumans.Butwhenyou’re inthemidstofahotargument,youdon’talwayspresenttheothersidefairly.ForAlexander,ifChristcame into existence at some point of time andwas inferior toGod the Father, then in both thoserespectshewaslikehumansandnotlikeGod.

LaterintheletterAlexanderexpressesArius’sviewmorepreciselywhenhesaysthatAriushaddeclared “that therewas a timewhen the Son ofGod did not exist” (Letter ofAlexander, v.10). Inresponsetothisview,AlexanderappealstoapassageintheNewTestament,Hebrews1:2,whichsaysthatitwasthroughChristthatGod“madetheages.”AlexanderreasonsthatifChristmadetheages,thentherecouldnotbeatimebeforewhichheexisted,sincehewastheonewhocreatedtimeandage:“foritisalsoidioticandfullofeverykindofignorancetoclaimthatthecauseofsomething’sorigincametobeafteritsbeginning”(LetterofAlexander,v.23).

Moreover,Alexanderwants to insist thatGodcannotchange—sincehe isGod—and thismeansthatGodcouldnot“become”theFather;hemustalwayshavebeentheFather.ButthisinturnmeansthathemustalwayshavehadaSon(LetterofAlexander,v.26).Inaddition,ifChristisGod’s“image,”asscriptureasserts(seeCol.1:15),thenhemusthavealwaysexisted.ForhowcouldGodexistifhedidn’thaveanimage?SinceGodobviouslyalwayshadtohaveanimage,andsincehealwaysexisted,thentheimageitself—thatis,Christ—musthavealwaysexisted(LetterofAlexander,v.27).

Insum,AlexanderclaimsthatChrist“isimmutableandunchangeableliketheFather,perfectSonlackinginnothinginresemblancetoHisFather,exceptforthefactthattheFatherisunbegotten....

WealsobelievethattheSonhasalwaysexistedoutoftheFather”(LetterofAlexander,v.47).

TheArianControversyandtheCouncilofNiceaITMAYBEUSEFULtoexplorethecontroversybetweenthosewhosidedwithAriusandthosewhosidedwithhisbishopAlexanderbygiving,first,inbrief,abroaderhistoricalcontext.

TheRoleofConstantineSince its inception, Christianity had periodically been persecuted by Roman authorities. Formorethan two hundred years, these persecutionswere relatively infrequent and sporadic, and theywereneverpromotedfromthehighestlevels,theimperialgovernmentinRome.Thatchangedin249CE,when theRomanemperorDecius sponsoredanempirewidepersecution to isolate and rootout theChristians.8 Fortunately for theChristians,Decius died twoyears later, and the persecution by andlargeceased,forabrieftime.

Someof thefollowingemperorswerealsohostile toChristians,whosenumbersweregrowingandwhosepresencewasseenasakindofcancerousgrowththreateningthewell-beingoftheempire,which had been established for somany centuries on solid pagan principles. The so-called GreatPersecution came with the emperor Diocletian, starting in 303. There were several phases to thispersecution, as imperial decrees were passed that were designed, in part, to force Christians torenouncetheirfaithandworshippagangods.

ConstantinetheGreatbecameemperorintheyear306.Hewasbornandraisedapagan,butin312he had a conversion experience and committed himself to the Christian God and the Christianreligion.Scholarshavearguedlongandhardoverwhetherthisconversionwas“genuine”ornot,buttodaymostmaintainthatitwasindeedanauthenticcommitmentonConstantine’sparttofollowandpromotetheChristianGod.ThenextyearConstantinepersuadedhisco-emperor,Licinius,toissueajoint decree ending all persecution ofChristians. From then on, things changed drastically for theChristianmovement.

Itissometimessaid—quitewrongly—thatConstantinemadeChristianitythe“official”religionofthe empire. This is not at all the case. What Constantine did was to make Christianity a favoredreligion. He himself was a Christian, he promoted Christian causes, he gave money to build andfinanceChristianchurches,andonthewhole,itbecameaverygoodthingtobeaChristian.Thebestscholarly estimates indicate that at about the time of Constantine’s conversion, something like 5percentof theempire’ssixtymillion inhabitantscalled themselvesChristian.Whenthechurchwentfrom being a persecuted minority to being the hottest religious item in the empire, conversionsincreased dramatically. By the end of the century, something like 50 percent of the people in theempirewereChristian.9Moreover,at that laterpoint,under theemperorTheodosius I,Christianitydid indeed become, for all intents and purposes, the “official” Roman religion. Pagan religiouspracticeswereoutlawed.Conversionscontinued.All this led,ultimately, toChristianitybeing“the”religionoftheWestforcenturies.

ButbacktoConstantine.WhenIsaidthatConstantineappearstohavehadagenuineconversion,IdonotmeantosaythathelookedontheChristianfaithfromwhatwemightcallapurely“religious”perspectivewithoutasocialorpoliticalelementtoit(Ishouldstressthatancientpeoplesawreligionandpoliticssobounduptogetherthattheydidnotspeakofthemasdifferententities;thereisactually

noGreekwordthatcorrespondstowhatwecall“religion”).Hewas,aboveallelse,theemperorofRome, and no one at that time believed in what we today call the separation of church and state.Indeed,under all theprecedingpaganemperors, therehadverymuchbeen a senseof theunityofreligiouspracticeandstatepolicy.Duringthereignsofalltheearlieremperorsitwasbelievedthatthe pagan gods of Rome hadmadeRome great, and in response, theRoman rulers promoted theworshipoftheRomangods.Constantinetoosawthepoliticalvalueofreligion.Thisdoesnotmeanthathedidnot really “believe” theChristianmessage, just thathe also saw its social, cultural, andpolitical utility. Itwas precisely this potential utility that upsetConstantinewhenhe learned that anenormous controversy was creating rifts in Christian communities. It all had to do with whetherChrist was equal with God or was instead subordinate to him as a divine being who came intoexistenceatsomepointintime.

ScholarshavesuggestedseveralreasonswhytheemperorwouldhaveeventheslightestinterestingettinginvolvedintheseinternalChristiandebates.Therecanbenodisputingthefactthathedidso. A biography written by Eusebius of Caesarea, The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine,reproducesaletterConstantinesenttoAriusandAlexanderinwhichhetriedtogetthemtoseeeye-to-eye on the theological issue dividing them. The letter suggests that Constantine understoodChristianityasapotentiallyunifyingforceinhissociallyandculturallydisunifiedempire.Lookedatevenfromadisinterestedpointofview,Christianitycouldbeseenasareligionthatstressesunityandoneness.ThereisoneGod(notlotsofgods).GodhasoneSon.Thereisonewayofsalvation.Thereisonlyonetruth.Thereis“oneLord,onefaith,andonebaptism”(Eph.4:5).ThecreationisunitedwithGod,itscreator;GodisunitedwithhisSon;hisSonisunitedwithhispeople;andthesalvationhebringsmakeshispeopleunitedwithGod.Thereligionisallaboutoneness,unity.

Assuch,itcouldbeusedtobringunitytoafracturedempire.SoConstantineacknowledgestothetwo recipients of his letter: “My first concernwas that the attitude towards the Divinity of all theprovincesshouldbeunitedinoneconsistentview”(Life2.65).10Theproblemwasthattherewasnoconsistency in the church itself, because of the split over Arius’s teachings. The split especiallyaffected the churches of Africa, to Constantine’s chagrin: “Indeed . . . an intolerablemadness hadseized thewholeofAfricabecauseof thosewhohaddaredwith ill-consideredfrivolity tosplit theworshipofthepopulationintovariousfactions,and...Ipersonallydesiredtoputrightthisdisease”(Life2.66).ConstantinethuswantedtohealthetheologicaldivisioninthechurchinordertomaketheChristianfaithmoreusefulinbringingreligiousandculturalunitytotheempire.

A second reason sometimes suggested for Constantine’s concern relates more closely to hispagan inheritance. It had widely been believed for many centuries that the gods oversaw the bestinterestsofRomewhentheywereproperlyacknowledgedinculticpracticesofthestate.Worshipingthegodsintheproperandprescribedwayearnedtheirgoodfavor,andtheirgoodfavorwasmanifestintheirkindtreatmentofthestate—forexample,inwinningitswarsandinprosperingduringtimesof peace. Constantine inherited this perspective and may well have brought it with him into hisChristianfaith.NowheworshipednotthetraditionalgodsofRome,buttheGodoftheChristians.ButthisGodtoomustbeworshipedproperly.Ifthereareseriousdivisionsintheworshipingcommunity,however,thiscouldnotbepleasingtoGod.Christianitywasfarmorefocusedon“theologicaltruth”than traditionalGreekorRoman religionsandplacedgreateremphasison“sacrificialpractice.” Itwas important, in theChristian faith, toknowandpractice the truth.ButwidespreaddisagreementsaboutthetruthwouldleadtodeepriftsintheChristiancommunity,andGodcouldnotbepleasedwiththatstateofaffairs.Forthegoodofthestate,whichwasoverseenultimatelybyGod,itwasnecessarythattheseriftsbehealed.

Constantinewasnotatrainedtheologian,andhefoundhimselftobesomewhattakenabackbythevirulenceofthedebatebetweenAriusandAlexander.ToConstantine,theissuesseemedpetty.Whatdoes it reallymatterwhether therewas a time beforewhichChrist existed? Is that really themostimportantthing?NotforConstantine.Ashesaysinhisletter:“Iconsideredtheoriginandoccasionforthesethings...asextremelytrivialandquiteunworthyofsomuchcontroversy”(Life2.68).Butcontention there was. So he tried to encourage Arius and Alexander to resolve their theologicaldifferencessoChristianitycouldmoveforwardasaunifiedwholetoconfrontthegreaterproblemsoftheempire.

Constantine had the letter delivered by an important bishop of Cordova, Spain, namedOssius.Afterdelivering the letter,Ossius returned fromAlexandriaby a land route that tookhim throughAntiochofSyria,whereasynodofbishopswasbeingheldtodebatethetheologicalquestionsraisedbyArius.Thissynoddevisedacreedalstatement(thatis,astatementoffaith)thatcontradictedArius’sviews.Everyoneatthesynodsignedthiscreed,withthreeexceptions—oneofthembeingEusebiusofCaesarea. It was agreed, however, that these three could be given a further chance to defendthemselvesandtheirChristologicalviewsatanothermeeting.AndthisishowtheCouncilofNiceawasborn.

TheCouncilofNiceaOriginally,thecouncilwassupposedtomeetinAncyra(inTurkey),butforpracticalreasonsitwasmovedtoNicea(alsoinTurkey).11Thiswasthefirstofthesevenmajorcouncilsofchurchbishopsthathistorianshavecalledecumenicalcouncils—whichmeanssomethinglike“councilsoftheentireworld.”Thetermisnotentirelyaptinthiscase,sinceobviouslythewholeworlddidnotparticipateinthecouncilbutonlyagroupofbishops;moreover,thesebishopswerenotwidelyrepresentativeoftheentireworld,orevenoftheworldofChristendom.Hardlyanybishopsattendedfromthewesternpartoftheempire;mostcamefromsucheasternclimesasEgypt,Palestine,Syria,AsiaMinor,andMesopotamia.Even thebishopofRome,Sylvester, didnot attendbut sent two legates inhisplace.Historiansdifferon thenumberofbishopsat theconference.AthanasiusofAlexandria,whowasayoungmanatthetime(butwhowaseventuallytobecomethepowerfulbishopofAlexandria),laterindicatedthat318bishopswerepresent.ThecouncilmetinJune325CE.

ThekeyissuetoberesolvedbythecouncilconcernedtheteachingsofAriusandhissupporters,including Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius began the proceedings by introducing his own creedalstatement—that is, his theological exposition of what should be confessed as true and valid aboutGod, aboutChrist, about the Spirit, and so on. Evidently,most participants at the council saw thiscreedtobebasicallyacceptable;butitwasambiguousatkeypoints,somostofthebishopswerenotsatisfiedbecause it didnotdirectly refute theheretical claimsofArius.Afterhammeringout theirtheological positions, the bishops finally agreed upon a creed. It consisted of terse theologicalstatements: beginningwith a very brief statement aboutGod the Father (brief because no onewasdisputing the character or nature of God), followed in much longer order with statements aboutChrist(sincethatwasthetopicofconcern),andconcludinginalmostunbelievablyshortorderwithastatement about the Spirit (since that too was not yet an issue). The creed ended with a set ofanathemas,orcurses,onpeoplewhomadecertainhereticaldeclarations—thesedeclarationsallbeingclaimsconnectedwithAriusandhisfollowers.ThiscreedeventuallybecamethefoundationofwhatisnowcalledtheNiceneCreed.Hereitis,infull(readerswhoarefamiliarwiththeNiceneCreedasitis recited today will notice key differences—especially with the anathemas; the modern version

representsalaterrevision):

WebelieveinoneGod,theFather,almighty,makerofallthingsvisibleandinvisible;AndinoneLordJesusChrist, theSonofGod,begotten fromtheFather,only-begotten, that is, fromthesubstanceof the

Father,GodfromGod,lightfromlight,trueGodfromtrueGod,begottennotmade,ofonesubstancewiththeFather,throughwhom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, who because of us humans and because of oursalvationcamedownandbecameincarnate,becominghuman,sufferedandroseonthethirdday,ascendedtotheheavens,willcometojudgethelivingandthedead;AndintheHolySpirit.But as for thosewho say, “Therewaswhen hewas not” and “Before being born hewas not” and that “He came into

existenceoutofnothing”orwhoassertthattheSonofGodisofadifferenthypostasisorsubstanceorissubjecttoalterationandchange—thesetheCatholicandApostolicchurchanathematizes.12

Many people have written entire books on this council and its creed.13 For our purposes, Iemphasizejustacoupleofpoints.First,asIhavealreadystressed,farmorespaceisdevotedinthecreed to Christ than to the Father, and the Spirit is barely mentioned. It was important to get theteachingsaboutChrist“right.”Toassuretheseteachings,andtoavoidanyambiguities,theanathemasareadded.

Inthecreeditself,Christissaidtobe“fromthesubstanceoftheFather.”HeisnotasubordinateGod.He is “of one substancewith the Father.” TheGreekword used to indicate “one substance,”which could also be translated as “same substance,” is homoousios. It was destined to become animportant term in laterdisputesover thenatureofChrist.As it turnsout,andaswewill see in theepilogue,neitherthecouncilnorthecreedresolvedalltheissuessurroundingthenatureofChrist.Infact,theissueslivedon;Arianismcontinuedtothrive;andevenaftertheArianissuewaseventuallyresolved, a whole set of other issues, increasingly detailed, nuanced, and sophisticated, arose. IfConstantinedidnotmuchlikethecontroversyofhisownday,hewouldhavedespisedwhatwastocome.

But it is important that the creed emphasizes thatChrist is of the “same substance” asGod theFather.ThisisawayofsayingthatGodandChristareabsolutelyequal.Christis“trueGod,”notasubordinatedeitysecondary toGodtheFather.Andas theanathemasindicate, it isnowaheresytoclaimthereeverwasatimewhenChristdidnotexist(orbeforewhichhedidnotexist),ortosayhewascreatedlikeeverythingelseintheuniverse“outofnothing,”orthathedoesnotshareGod’sverysubstance.

TheOutcomeoftheCouncilTomakealongandcomplexstoryveryshort, therewaswidespreadagreementamongthebishopspresentaboutthedetailsofthenewcreed,whichwasseentobebindingonallChristians.Thatiswhatthecreedmeanswhenitstatesthatitpresentstheviewofthe“CatholicandApostolicchurch”:itistheview of the church that descended in direct lineage from the apostles of Jesus and that is foundscatteredthroughouttheentireworld(“catholic”inthiscontextmeans“universal”).SometimesyouwillhearthatatNiceaitwas“aclosevote.”Itwasnotclose.Onlytwentyofthe318bishopsdisagreedwiththecreedwhenitwasfinallyformulated.Constantine,whowasactivelyinvolvedwithsomeoftheproceedings,forcedseventeenofthosetwentytoacquiesce.Soonlythreedidnoteventuallysignoffonthecreed:AriushimselfandtwobishopsfromhishomecountryofLibya.Thesethreewerebanished from Egypt. A couple of other bishops signed the creed but refused to agree to theanathemasat theend,whichweredirectedspecificallyagainstArius’s teachings.Thesebishops too

wereexiled.SothestoryofhowJesusbecameGodappearstoend.Butaswewillseeintheepilogue,itdidnot

reallyend.Quitethecontrary.Butforthetimebeing,Alexanderandhislike-mindedcolleagueswontheday,andConstantinebelievedhehadattainedaunifiedchurch.Theissueswere,forthemoment,resolved.ChristwascoeternalwithGodtheFather.Hehadalwaysexisted.Andhewas“ofthesamesubstance”asGodtheFather,himselftrulyGod,frombackintoeternity.

The Christ of Nicea is obviously a far cry from the historical Jesus of Nazareth, an itinerantapocalyptic preacher in the backwaters of rural Galilee who offended the authorities and wasunceremoniouslycrucifiedforcrimesagainstthestate.Whateverhemayhavebeeninreallife,JesushadnowbecomefullyGod.

EPILOGUE

JesusasGod:TheAftermath

AS I HAVE BEEN writing this book I have come to realize that the history of my own personaltheology is a mirror image of the history of the theology of the early church. To use the olderterminology, in earlyChristianity the views ofChrist got “higher and higher”with the passing oftime, as he became increasingly identified as divine. Jesus went from being a potential (human)messiahtobeingtheSonofGodexaltedtoadivinestatusathisresurrection;tobeingapreexistentangelicbeingwhocametoearthincarnateasaman;tobeingtheincarnationoftheWordofGodwhoexistedbeforeall timeandthroughwhomtheworldwascreated; tobeingGodhimself,equalwithGodtheFatherandalwaysexistentwithhim.MyownpersonalbeliefsaboutJesusmovedinpreciselytheoppositedirection.IstartedoutthinkingofJesusasGodtheSon,equalwiththeFather,amemberoftheTrinity;butovertime,Ibegantoseehimin“lowerandlower”terms,untilfinallyIcametothink of him as a humanbeingwhowas not different in nature from any other humanbeing.TheChristiansexaltedhimto thedivinerealmin their theology,but inmyopinion,hewas,andalwayshadbeen,ahuman.

Asanagnostic,InowthinkofJesusasatruereligiousgeniuswithbrilliantinsights.Buthewasalsoverymuchamanofhistime.Andhistimewasanageoffull-throatedapocalypticfervor.Jesusparticipatedinthisfirst-centuryPalestinianJewishmilieu.Hewasbornandraisedinit,anditwasthecontext within which he conducted his public ministry. Jesus taught that the age he lived in wascontrolledbyforcesofevilbut thatGodwouldsoonintervenetodestroyeverythingandeveryoneopposedtohim.Godwouldthenbringinagood,utopiankingdomonearth,wheretherewouldbenomorepainandsuffering.Jesushimselfwouldbetherulerofthiskingdom,withhistwelvedisciplesservingunderhim.Andallthiswastohappenverysoon—withinhisowngeneration.

This apocalyptic message does continue to resonate with me, but I certainly do not believe itliterally. I do not think that there are supernatural powers of evil who are controlling ourgovernmentsordemonswhoaremakingour livesmiserable; Idonot think there isgoing tobeadivineinterventionintheworldinwhichalltheforcesofevilwillbepermanentlydestroyed;IdonotthinktherewillbeafutureutopiankingdomhereonearthruledbyJesusandhisapostles.ButIdothinkthereisgoodandevil;Idothinkweshouldallbeonthesideofgood;andIdothinkweshouldfightmightilyagainstallthatisevil.

I especially resonatewith theethical teachingsof Jesus.He taught thatmuchof the lawofGodcouldbesummarizedinthecommandto“loveyourneighborasyourself.”Hetaughtthatyoushould“dountoothersasyouwouldhave themdountoyou.”He taught thatouractsof love,generosity,mercy,andkindnessshouldreachevento“theleastofthese,mybrothersandsisters”—thatis,tothelowly, the outcast, the impoverished, the homeless, the destitute. I agreewholeheartedlywith theseviewsandtrymybesttoliveaccordingtothem.

ButasahistorianIrealizethatJesus’sethicalteachingsweredeliveredinadecidedlyapocalypticformtowhichIdonotsubscribe.Jesusissometimeslaudedasoneofthegreatmoralteachersofall

time, and I sympathize with this characterization. But it is important to realize that the reasoningbehindhismoralteachingisnotthereasoningmostofususetoday.Peopletodaythinkthatweshouldliveethicallyforawidevarietyof reasons—mostof themirrelevant toJesus—forexample,sowecanfindthegreatestself-fulfillmentinlifeandsowecanallthrivetogetherasasocietyforthelonghaul.Jesusdidnotteachhisethicssothatsocietycouldthriveforthelonghaul.ForJesus,therewasnotgoingtobea longhaul.Theendwascomingsoon,andpeopleneededtoprepareforit.Thosewho lived according to the standards he set forth, lovingGodwith all their being and loving oneanotheras themselves,wouldenter into thekingdomofGodthatwasverysoon toappear.AnyonewhochosenottodosowouldbedestroyedwhentheSonofManarrivedinjudgmentfromheaven.Jesus’sethicswerean“ethicsofthekingdom”bothbecausethekindsofliveshisfollowersledwhenthey followed these ethical principles would be the kinds of lives they would experience in thekingdom—where therewouldbenowar,hatred,violence,oppression,or injustice—andbecauseapersoncouldenterintothekingdomonlybylivinginthisway.

ThisisnottheworldviewImyselfhave.Idon’tbelievethereisaGodinheavenwhoissoontosendacosmicjudgeoftheearthtodestroytheforcesofevil.AndyetIthinkthattheethicalprinciplesJesusenunciatedinthatapocalypticcontextarestillapplicabletome,livinginadifferentcontext.TomakesenseofJesus, Ihave recontextualizedhim—that is,madehimandhismessage relevant inanewcontext—foranewday,thedayinwhichIlive.

IwouldarguethatJesushasalwaysbeenrecontextualizedbypeoplelivingindifferenttimesandplaces.ThefirstfollowersofJesusdidthisaftertheycametobelievethathehadbeenraisedfromthedeadandexaltedtoheaven:theymadehimintosomethinghehadnotbeenbeforeandunderstoodhiminlightoftheirnewsituation.SotoodidthelaterauthorsoftheNewTestament,whorecontextualizedand understood Jesus in light of their own, now even more different situations. So too did theChristiansofthesecondandthirdcenturies,whounderstoodJesuslessasanapocalypticprophetandmore as a divine being become human. So too did the Christians of the fourth century, whomaintained that he had always existed and had always been equal with God the Father in status,authority,andpower.AndsotoodoChristianstoday,whothinkthatthedivineChristtheybelieveinandconfessisidenticalineveryrespectwiththepersonwhowaswalkingthedustylanesofGalileepreachinghisapocalypticmessageof thecomingdestruction.MostChristians todaydonot realizethat theyhaverecontextualizedJesus.Butinfact theyhave.Everyonewhoeitherbelievesinhimorsubscribestoanyofhisteachingshasdoneso—fromtheearliestbelieverswhofirstcametobelieveinhisresurrectionuntiltoday.Andsoitwillbe,worldwithoutend.

Thisiscertainlyandmostobviouslytrueoftheyearswehaveexaminedinthisbook.Itcontinuedtobetrueintheyearsthatfollowed,aswecannowseeasweconsiderwhathappenedintheaftermathofthedecisionoftheCouncilofNiceathatChristwasGodinaparticularsense,thathehadbeenapreexistentdivinebeingwithGod throughout all eternity, and thathewas, in fact, theone throughwhomGodhadmadeallthings.

DevelopmentsoftheFourthCenturyIN THE POPULAR IMAGINATION it iswidely thought that after theCouncil ofNicea therewas a basicagreementamongChristianleadersandthinkersconcerningthenatureofChristandthecharacteroftheTrinity.Infact,nothingcouldbefartherfromthetruth.Niceaanditscreedwerenottheendofthestory,butthebeginningofanewchapter.Foronething,thedefeatoftheAriansideatNiceadidnot

stampouttheArianview.Constantinebackedthewinningside—probablylessbecauseitwaswhatheactuallybelieved thanbecause itbecametheconsensusopinionandhewasprincipally interested inhavingaconsensusemerge tohelpunify thechurch.But thechurchwasnotunifiedandwouldnotbecomeunified.AfterConstantineotheremperorscameandwent,andoverthenextseveraldecadesanumber of these emperors leaned toward theArian interpretation ofChrist and acted out on theirconvictions.Thereweretimes—possiblymostofthetimes—whenthereweremoreAriansthananti-Arians.ThatiswhythechurchfatherJerome,writingin379CE,couldmakehisfamouslamentthat“theworldgroanedandwasastonishedtofinditselfArian”(DialogueAgainstLuciferians19).

As it turns out, theArian controversywas not finally decided until the nextmajor ecumenicalcouncil, held just two years after Jerome’s lament, the Council of Constantinople in 381. At thiscouncilthedecisionsofNiceawererestatedandreaffirmed,andArianismcametobeamarginalizedminorityviewwidelydeemedheretical.

For thosestandingoutside these theologicalcontroversies, thedifferencesbetweentheviewsofAriusandofArius’sopponents,suchashisbishopAlexanderandtheyoungbutbrilliantAthanasius—himself soon to be bishop of Alexandria—are less striking than the commonalities. Even the“heretical”AriansagreedwithAthanasiusandothersthatChristwasGod.HewasadivinebeingwhohadexistedwithGodbeforethebeginningofallotherthingsandwastheonethroughwhomGodhadcreatedtheuniverse.Thiswasstillavery“high”incarnationalChristology.BythetimeofthedebatesbetweenAriusandhisopponents, and then, inafteryears,between theAriansand the followersofAthanasius,veryfewChristiansdoubted thatJesuswasactuallyGod.Onceagain, theonlyquestionwas“inwhatsense”hewasGod.

Whatisarguablymostsignificantisthatinthefourthcentury,whenthesedisputeshadcometoahead,theRomanemperorConstantinehadconvertedtothefaith.Thatchangedeverything.HavingaChristianemperoronthethrone—onewhobelievedandpropagatedthebeliefthatChristwasGod—hadradicalimplicationsforthevariousinteractionsbetweenorthodoxChristiansandothers.InwhatremainsofthisepilogueIbrieflyconsidertheimplicationsforthreerealmsofdisputethatChristiansengagedin:disputeswithpagans,disputeswithJews,anddisputeswithoneanother.

TheGodChristandthePaganWorldSINCETHEDAYSOFCaesarAugustus,threehundredyearsearlier,inhabitantsoftheRomanworldhadunderstoodandworshipedtheemperorasagod.Moreover,fromthetimetheearliestfollowersofJesus came to believe that hewas raised from the dead,Christians had understood andworshipedChristasGod.Aswehaveseen,thesetwo—theemperorandJesus—weretheonlytwofiguresthatweknowof from antiquitywhowere actually called “theSon ofGod.”And in theChristianmind, atleast, this meant that the two figures were in competition. In the early fourth century, one of thecompetitorscavedinandlostthestruggle.WithConstantine,theemperorchangedfrombeingarivalgodtoJesustobebeingaservantofJesus.

OneofthemostinterestingworksbythechurchhistorianEusebiusishispreviouslymentionedLife of theBlessedEmperorConstantine, a biographical account of the emperor that is, to say theleast,effusiveinitspraise.ArguablythemostvaluablepartsoftheLifearethoseinwhichEusebiusquotestheactualwordsoftheemperor.InaletterConstantinewrotetotheChristiansofPalestine,itbecomesclearthatConstantinedoesnotseehimselfasacompetitorwithChristandGodtheFather,butratherstandsinaweofGod’spowerandrecognizeshisneedtoservehimashisservantonearth.

At one point Constantine declares that the Christian God “alone really exists and holds powercontinuouslythroughalltime,”andhesaysthatGod“examinedmyserviceandapproveditasfitforhispurposes”(Life2.28).Orashesayslaterintheletter,“IndeedmywholesoulandwhateverbreathIdraw,andwhatevergoesonin thedepthsof themind, that, Iamfirmlyconvinced, isowedbyuswhollytothegreatestGod”(Life2.24).Clearlythereisnocompetitionhere!

AsaresultofConstantine’sdevotion,Eusebiuswrites,“bylawheforbadeimagesofhimselftobeset up in idol-shrines.” Moreover, he “had his portrait so depicted on the gold coinage that heappeared to lookupwards in themannerof one reachingout toGod inprayer” (Life 4.15, 16). Inotherwords,Constantinereversedthethree-centuries-oldproceduresofhispredecessors.Ratherthanallowing himself to be depicted as a god and worshiped as a god, he insisted that he be shownworshipingthetrueGod.

Somewhatmorestriking,Constantinerequiredthesoldiersinhisarmynottoworshiphim,buttoworshiptheChristianGod.Thisappliedeventothesoldierswhoremainedpagan.EusebiusindicatesthatConstantinerequiredthenon-ChristiansoldiersinthearmytogatheronaplaineverySundayandrecitethefollowingprayertotheChristianGod:

YoualoneweknowasGod,YouaretheKingweacknowledge,YouaretheHelpwesummon,Byyouwehavewonourvictories,Throughyouwehaveovercomeourenemies...ToyouweallcometosupplicateforourEmperorConstantineandforhisbelovedSons:Thattheymaybekeptsafeandvictoriousforusinlonglife(Life4.20)

Once the emperor became Christian, it is fair to say that everything changed with respect toChristianrelationshipswithpagansandwiththeRomangovernment.Ratherthanbeingapersecutedminoritywhorefusedtoworshipthedivineemperor,theChristianswereonthepathtobecomingthepersecutingmajority,with theemperoras the servantof the trueGodwhoencouraged,directlyorindirectly, thecitizensof thestate to join inhisChristianworship.Bytheendof thefourthcenturysomething like half of the entire empire was converted to orthodox Christianity; the emperorenforced laws promoting the Christian religion and outlawing pagan sacrifice and worship; andChristianity triumphed once and for all over the pagan religions that had previously accepted theemperorasdivine.

TheGodChristandtheJewishWorldTHECHRISTIANBELIEFTHATJesuswasGodhadseriousramificationsforJewish-Christianrelationsinantiquity,becauseitwaswidelythoughtthattheJewswereresponsibleforJesus’sdeath.IftheJewskilledJesus,andJesuswasGod,doesitnotfollowthattheJewshadkilledtheirownGod?1

This was in fact a view held in orthodox circles long before the conversion of Constantine.NowheredoesitcomeinamorechillingrhetoricalpackagethaninasermonpreachedbyabishopofthecityofSardisinAsiaMinorneartheendofthesecondChristiancentury,amannamedMelito.ThisisthefirstinstancewehaveonrecordofaChristianchargingJewswiththecrimeofdeicide—themurderofGod.Melitodeliversthechargeinpowerfulandhighlyeffectivelanguage.Iquotehereonlyasmallportionofhislongsermon.TheoccasionwastheJewishPassover,whenJewsannually

commemorated thegreatactofGodwhenhedelivered thechildrenof Israel fromtheir slavery inEgyptduringthedaysofMoses.ThePassoverlambthatwasslainonthatoccasionwas,forMelito,an image of Christ himself, slain by the Jews. And rather than being an occasion for joyouscelebration,thedeathofthetruelambwasanoccasionforhostileaccusation.TheJewskilledtheonewhohadcometosavethem;theykilledtheirownmessiah;andsincethemessiahwashimselfdivine,theJewskilledtheirownGod:

ThisonewasmurderedAndwherewashemurdered?IntheverycenterofJerusalem!Why?Becausehehadhealedtheirlame,Andhadcleansedtheirlepers,Andhadguidedtheirblindwithlight,Andhadraiseduptheirdead.Forthisreasonhesuffered....WhyOIsrael,didyoudothisstrangeinjustice?Youdishonoredtheonewhohadhonoredyou.Youheldincontempttheonewhoheldyouinesteem.Youdeniedtheonewhopubliclyacknowledgedyou.Yourenouncedtheonewhoproclaimedyouhisown.Youkilledtheonewhomadeyoutolive,Whydidyoudothis,OIsrael?...Itwasnecessaryforhimtosuffer,yes,butnotbyyou;Itwasnecessaryforhimtobedishonored,butnotbyyou;Itwasnecessaryforhimtobejudged,butnotbyyou;Itwasnecessaryforhimtobecrucified,butnotbyyou,norbyyourrighthand,OIsrael!

Therhetoric thenmovestoaclimaxasMelitodelivershisultimatechargeagainsthisenemies,theJews:

Payattention,allfamiliesofthenations,andobserve!AnextraordinarymurderhastakenplaceInthecenterofJerusalem,InthecitydevotedtoGod’slaw,InthecityoftheHebrews,Inthecityoftheprophets,Inthecitythoughtofasjust.Andwhohasbeenmurdered?Andwhoisthemurderer?Iamashamedtogivetheanswer,ButgiveitImust....Theonewhohungtheearthinspaceishimselfhanged;Theonewhofixedtheheavensinplace,ishimselfimpaled;Theonewhofirmlyfixedallthings,ishimselffirmlyfixedtothetree.TheLordisinsulted,Godhasbeenmurdered,TheKingofIsraelhasbeendestroyedBytherighthandofIsrael.2

Itis,ofcourse,onethingforamemberofarelativelysmallpersecutedminoritythatispoliticallypowerlesstoattackotherswithsuchvitriolicrhetoric.Butwhathappenswhenthepersecutedminority

comes to be a majority?What happens when it gains political power—in fact, supreme politicalpower?WhathappenswhentheemperorofRomehimselfcomestobelievetheChristianmessage?Asyoucan imagine,whathappenswillnotbegoodfor theenemieswhosupposedlymurdered theGodtheChristiansworship.

In a book that has deservedly become a classic study of the rise of anti-Judaism in the earlychurch,calledFaithandFratricide, theologianRosemaryRuethersetsforth thesocial implicationsofChristianpowerinthefourthcenturyforJewsoftheempire.3TheshortstoryisthatJewscametobelegallymarginalizedunderChristianemperorsandtreatedassecond-classcitizenswithrestrictedlegal rightsand limitedeconomicpossibilities.Jewishbeliefsandpracticeswerenotactuallymadeillegal,inthewaypagansacrificeswereattheendofthefourthcentury,buttheologiansandChristianbishops—who now were increasingly powerful not only as religious leaders, but also as civilauthorities—railedagainstJewsandattackedthemastheenemiesofGod.StatelegislationwaspassedtoconstraintheactivitiesofJews.

ConstantinehimselfpassedalawthatforbadeJewsfromowningChristianslaves.Thismayseemlike a humanemeasure in our day and age, when slavery of all kinds is viewedwith disgust andcontempt.ButConstantinedidnotbanslaveryandwasnotopposedtoit.Onthecontrary,theRomanworld continued to work as a slave economy. Without slaves one could not run any seriousmanufacturingoragriculturalbusiness.ButifthepopulationbecameincreasinglyChristian,andJewscouldhaveonly Jewish andpagan slaves, thenanychance for Jews to compete economicallywithChristianswascurtailed.

EventuallyitbecameillegalforaChristiantoconverttoJudaism.UndertheemperorTheodotiusI,neartheendofthefourthcentury,itbecameillegalforaChristiantomarryaJew.Doingsowasconsideredanactofadultery.Jewscametobeexcludedfromservinginpublicoffice.In423CEalawwaspassedthatmadeitillegalforJewstobuildorevenrepairasynagogue.AccompanyingalltheseformsoflegislationwereactsofviolenceagainstJewsthat,evenifnotsponsoredbytheemperororotherstateauthorities,weretacitlycondoned.Synagogueswereburned,landswereconfiscated,Jewswerepersecutedandevenmurdered—andtheauthoritiesturnedablindeye.Whynot?ThesewerethepeoplewhohadkilledGod.

Akeyexampleillustratesthesituation.In388CEthebishopofatowncalledCallinicumincitedhisChristianparishionerstoassaultthelocalJewishsynagogue.Theydidso,levelingit totheground.WhentheJewishpopulationintownprotestedtotheemperorTheodosius,heorderedthebishoptohavethesynagoguerebuiltwithchurchmoney.Atthatpoint,apowerfulChristianleaderinterposedto try to reverse the emperor ’s judgment. One of the most influential bishops at the time wasAmbrose,thebishopofMilan.Whenwordoftheemperor ’sinterventionanddemandforreparationreachedMilan,Ambrosewroteaharsh letter inprotest,arguing that theemperorwas indangerofoffendinghisownreligiousdutybythisinterventionandinsistingthatthebishopshouldbynomeansberequiredtorestorethesynagogue.

Herewe have a remarkable situation.Less than a century earlier,Christian leaderswere beinghunteddownandpersecutedbytherulingauthorities.NowChristianleaderswerereprimandingtheemperorinwritingandexpectingthattheywouldbeobeyed.Howthetableshaveturned!

TheodosiusdecidedtoignoreAmbrose’sprotest,butasithappens,hemadeatriptoMilanandattendedaworshipserviceinthecathedral there.Ambroseclaims, inhisownaccountof theaffair,thathepreachedasermondirectedtotheemperor ’s“misbehavior”andafterward, inthemiddleoftheservice,walkeddownfromthealtartoconfronttheemperorface-to-face,publiclydemandingthat

theemperorbackdown.Inthisverypublicarena,theemperorfelthehadnochoice.Heaccededtothebishop’sdemand,theChristianmobinCallinicumwentunpunished,andthesynagogueremainedinruins(seeAmbrose,Letters40and41).4

Now,notonlyisChristGod,buthisservantsthebishopshaverealpoliticalpower.Andtheyareusing thatpower inuglywaysagainst their longtimeenemies, theJews, thosewhoallegedlykilledtheirownGod.

TheGodChristandtheChristianWorldWITH THE CONVERSION OF the emperor to the belief that Christ was God and that the God of theChristians was supreme, the discourse of Christians among themselves clearly changed. Earlierarguments of Christians with Christians were over issues that came to be seen as basic andfoundational.WasChristGod?Yes.Washeahuman?Yes.Washe,though,justoneperson,nottwo?Yes.Bytheearlyfourthcentury,whenConstantineconverted,thevastmajorityofChristiansagreedwiththoseaffirmations.Youmightthinkthatthiswouldputanendtothetheologicaldebatesandthesearchforhereticsinthemidstof theorthodox.Butthehistorical truthis that thedebateswerejuststartingtowarmup.

Ihavealreadymentionedthefact that theAriancontroversydidnotdieoutwith theCouncilofNicea; itwenton foranotherhalfcenturyormore.Andnewdebatesarose,over issues thatwouldhavebeenunthinkablejustahundredyearsearlier.Theologicalviewsthatdevelopedinthewakeofthe conquest of orthodox understandings of Jesus as both divine and human became increasinglysophisticatedandnuanced.Whatearlierhadbeenacceptablepositionsamongtheorthodoxcametobechallenged in their minutest details. The issues may seem picayune to outside observers, but toinsiderstheyweremattersofrealmoment,witheternalconsequences.Asaresult,thevitrioldidnotlessen now that the “major” issues had been resolved. If anything, the rhetoric was significantlyratcheted up, and error on even the smallest point became amatter of enormous importance—thestuffofexcommunicationandexile.

Iwillnottrytoprovideevenacursorytreatmentofthevarioustheologicalcontroversiesofthefourth, fifth, and latercenturies,but insteadwillgive the slightest taste,bybrieflydescribing threeviews that came to be articulated, debated, and eventually denounced as heretical.5 This quickoverviewwill at leastgive an ideaof the levelof argumentationcarriedonbetweenChristian andChristian.

MarcellusofAncyraOneofthemajorproponentsoftheAthanasian,anti-ArianviewsadoptedattheCouncilofNiceawasthe bishop of Ancyra, namedMarcellus (died 374 CE). He saw himself as hyperorthodox. But herealized that the decisions leading to the creed of Nicea left considerable room for development,especiallyonthequestionofhowChrist—whowascoeternalandequalwithGod—actuallyrelatedtotheFather.WereChristandtheFathertwoseparatebutequalbeings,orhypostases(atermthatnowmeantsomethinglike“person”or“individualentity”)?Marcellusfullyrealizedthatamodalistviewcould no longer be accepted. But was there some way to preserve the oneness, the unity, of thegodheadwithoutfallingintothetrapofSabelliusandotherslikehim,sothatnoonecouldchargetheChristiansofhavingmorethanoneGod?

Marcellus’ssolutionwastosaythattherewasonlyonehypostasis,whowasFather,Son,andHolySpirit.Inhisview,theChristandtheSpiritwereeternalwithGod,butonlybecausetheywereresidentwithinhimfrombackintoeternityandcameforthfromtheFatherforthepurposesofsalvation.Infact,beforeChristcameforthfromGod—whenhewasresidentwithinhim—hewasnotyettheSon;hecouldbetheSononlywhenhecameforthattheincarnation.AndsobeforethattimehewastheWordofGod,withintheFather.Moreover,onthebasisofhisinterpretationof1Corinthians15:24–28,whichsaysthatat“theend”ofallthings,Christwill“handoverthekingdomtoGodtheFather,”Marcellus maintained that Christ’s kingdom was not eternal. Ultimately, God the Father is allsovereign;ChristwilldeliverhiskingdomtotheFather;andthenhewillreturntoberesidentwithinhim.

This view obviously toed the line on themajorChristological issues of the second, third, andearlyfourthcenturies.ChristwasGod,hebecameman,andhewasonlyoneperson.Anditwasnotamodalistview.Butotherchurchleadersthoughtitsoundedtoomuchlikemodalismandcondemneditas a heresy.Thematterwasdiscussed and finally decided at theCouncil ofConstantinople in 381.ThatiswhenthelinewasintroducedintotheNiceneCreedthatisstillsaidtoday,that“his[Christ’s]kingdomshallhavenoend.”ThislinewasaddedtodemonstratethetheologicalrejectionoftheviewsofMarcellus.Otherchurchleadersdisagreedwiththisrejection.Andsothedebatescontinued.

ApollinarisApollinaris (315–392CE)was too young to have attended theCouncil ofNicea, but as an adult hebecame a friend of Athanasius and was appointed bishop of the city of Laodicea. LikeMarcellusbeforehim,heclaimedtobeatruesupporteroftheformoforthodoxyembracedbytheanti-AriancreedofNicea.ButhewasconsumedwiththequestionofhowChristcouldbeGodandhumanatoneandthesametime.IfJesuswasagod-man,thenwaspartofhimGodandanotherpartofhimaman?

We are a bit handicapped in knowing exactly howApollinaris expressed his views, since verylittleofhiswritingsurvives.WhathewaslateraccusedofteachingwasthattheincarnateChristdidnotactuallyhaveahumansoul.Likeothersathistime,Apollinarisappearstohaveunderstoodthathumansaremadeupofthreeparts:thebody;the“lowersoul,”whichistherootofouremotionsandpassions;andthe“uppersoul,”whichisourfacultyofreasonwithwhichweunderstandtheworld.ApollinarisevidentlymaintainedthatinJesusChrist,thepreexistentdivineLogosreplacedtheuppersoul,sohis reasonwascompletelydivine.Andso,Godandhumanareunitedandatone—there isonlyoneperson,Christ—buttheyareunitedbecauseinthemanJesus,Godhadapartandahumanhadapart.

OneresultofthisviewwasthatChristcouldnotdevelopmorally,orintermsofhispersonality,sincehedidnothaveahumansoulbutinsteadthedivineLogos.ThismorethananythingelseiswhatledtothecondemnationoftheApollinarianview.IfChristwasnotfullyhuman,ineveryrespect,hecouldnotsetanexampleforustofollow.Wearenotlikehim,sohowcanwebelikehim?Moreover,ifChristwasnotfullyhuman,thenitcannotbeclearhowhecouldredeemtheentirehumanbeing.Inthisunderstanding,Christ’ssalvationwouldextendtothehumanbodybutnottothehumansoul,sincehedidn’thaveahumansoul.

OrsotheopponentsofApollinarisargued.HeandhisviewswerecondemnedattheCouncilofConstantinople in 381, and even though in light of earlier controversies he seemed perfectlyorthodox,hewasnotallowedanylongereventoworshipinaChristianchurchinpublic.

NestoriusAsafinalexampleofacontroversy thatemergedfromtheconquestoforthodoxy,I turn toa laterfigure whose views came to be attacked, even though he himself wanted nothing more than torepresent the orthodox views of the faith. Nestorius (381–451 CE) was a leading ChristianspokespersonofhisdaywhowasappointedtotheprestigiouspositionofbishopofConstantinoplein428 CE. The controversy surrounding Nestorius and his views relates to an issue I have not yetaddressed. Once it came to be affirmed that Christ was God by nature, from back into eternity,theologiansbegantoaskwhatitmeanttosaythatMarywashismother.Maryherself,ofcourse,cameto be exalted as a person of unique standing, and legends and traditions about her proliferated.Theologians who considered her role in the salvation brought by Christ began now to call herTheotokos,whichmeans“onewhogivesbirthtoGod”butcametomean,moreroughly,“themotherofGod.”

ThistermwasinwideusebythetimeofNestoriusintheearlyfifthcentury,buthecametoobjectto it, publicly. In Nestorius’s view, to call Mary the mother of God sounded too much likeApollinarianism—thatMary gave birth to a human being who had the Logos of God within himinsteadofahumansoul.NestoriusbelievedthatChristwasfullyhuman,notpartiallyso,andalsothatChristwasfullyGod,notpartiallyso.Moreover,thedivineandthehumancannotintermingle,sincetheyaredifferentessences.BoththedivineandthehumanwerepresentinChristattheincarnation.

InstressingthisviewthatChristwasbothfullyGodandfullyhuman,NestoriuscametobeseenassomeonewhowantedtoarguethatChristwastwodifferentpersons,onedivineandonehuman—withhishumanelementtightlyembracingthedivinesothattheystoodinaunity(muchlikea“marriageofsouls”).ButbythistimeorthodoxChristianshadlongmaintainedthatChristwasjustoneperson.In the end, Nestorius’s enemies attacked this “two-person” Christology by arguing that it dividedChrist and thereby made him a “mere man” rather than some kind of “divine man.” As a result,NestoriusandhisviewswerecondemnedbyPopeCelestinein430andbytheecumenicalCouncilofEphesusin431.

My point in looking at these three later heresies is not to give a full survey ofChristologicaldiscussions of the fourth and fifth centuries. It is rather to illustrate the fact that once Christ wasdeclared to be God from back into eternity who had become a human, all the problems ofinterpretationandunderstandingwerenotsolved.Instead,newproblemswereintroduced.Andoncethesewereresolved,yetmoretheologicalissuescametothefore.Theologybecamemorenuanced.Viewsbecamemoresophisticated.Orthodoxtheologybecameevenmoreparadoxical.Manyoftheseissueswerenotfinallyresolvedinany“official”wayuntiltheCouncilofChalcedonin451.Buteventhat“resolution”didnotendalldisputesaboutGod,Christ,theTrinity,andallrelatedtopics.Disputeswouldrageformanycenturiestocomeandinfactcontinueinourownday.

ConclusionINNONEOFTHEChristiancontroversies Ihavediscussed in thisepiloguewas thereanyquestionofwhetherJesuswasGod.JesuswasinfactGod.Alloftheparticipantsinthesedebateshada“Nicene”understandingofChrist:hewasGodfrombackintoeternity;thereneverwasatimewhenorbeforewhichhedidnotexist;hewas theone throughwhomGodhadcreatedall things inheavenandonearth; he was of the same substance as God the Father; he was in fact equal with God in status,authority, and power.These are all quite exalted things to say about an apocalyptic preacher from

ruralGalileewhowascrucifiedforcrimesagainstthestate.WehavecomealongwayoverthethreehundredyearssinceJesus’sdeath.

Butonecouldargue—andprobablyshouldargue—thatinfactChristianthinkingaboutJesushadcomeanenormouswayjusttwentyyearsafterhisdeath.Itmusthavebeennomorethantwentyyearsafter Jesus died, possibly even fewer, that theChrist poem inPhilippianswas composed, inwhichJesuswassaid tohavebeenapreexistentbeing“in theformofGod”whobecamehumanandthenbecauseofhisobedientdeathwasexaltedtodivinestatusandmadeequalwithGod,theLordtowhomall people on earth would bow in worship and confess loyalty. One German scholar of the NewTestament,MartinHengel,hasfamouslyclaimedthat“withregardtothedevelopmentofalltheearlyChurch’sChristology. . .morehappenedin thefirst twentyyears thanintheentire later,centuries-longdevelopmentofdogma.”6

Thereisacertaintruthtothisclaim.Ofcourse,alotdidindeedhappenafterthefirsttwentyyears—anenormousamount.Butthemajorleapwasmadeinthosetwentyyears:fromseeingJesusashisown disciples did during his ministry, as a Jewish man with an apocalyptic message of comingdestruction, to seeinghimas something fargreater, apreexistentdivinebeingwhobecamehumanonlytemporarilybeforebeingmadetheLordoftheuniverse.ItwasnotlongafterthatthatJesuswasdeclaredtobetheveryWordofGodmadeflesh,whowaswithGodatcreationandthroughwhomGodmadeall things.Eventually Jesuscame tobe seenasGod inevery respect, coeternalwith theFather,ofthesamesubstanceastheFather,equaltotheFatherwithintheTrinityofthreepersons,butoneGod.

This God Christ may not have been the historical Jesus. But he was the Christ of orthodoxChristian doctrine, the object of faith and veneration over the centuries. And he is still the GodreveredandworshipedbyChristiansthroughoutourworldtoday.

NOTES

Chapter1:DivineHumansinAncientGreeceandRome1. Thosewhohavereadmyotherbookswillrecognizethestory,asIhavehadoccasiontotellitbefore.Seemytextbook,TheNewTestament:AHistoricalIntroductiontotheEarlyChristianWritings,5thed.(NewYork:OxfordUniv.Press,2012),32–34.

2. TranslationofF.C.Conybeare,Philostratus:TheLifeofApolloniusofTyana,LoebClassicalLibrary (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniv.Press,1950),vol.2.

3. SincePhilostratuswaswritingaftertheGospelswereincirculation,itisentirelypossible—asmanycriticshavepointedout—thathewasinfluencedbytheirportrayalofJesusandthat,asaresult,hehimselfcreatedthesimilaritiesbetweenhisaccountofApolloniusandtheGospelstories.Thatmayindeedbe true,butmypoint is thathispaganreaderswouldhavehadnodifficultyaccepting theideathatApolloniuswasanother“divineman,”likeotherswhowerewidelyknown.

4. TranslationofA.D.Melville,Ovid:Metamorphoses (Oxford:OxfordUniv. Press, 1986).All quotations are drawn fromBookVIII,190–93.

5. My friendMichael Penn, professor of religious studies atMountHolyoke, informsme that there are indeed cases of twins fromdifferentfathers—aphenomenonknownasheteropaternalsuperfecundation—butthewoman’stwoeggsneedtobefertilizedwithinarelativelyshortintervalfromoneanother.Amphytrionhadbeenawayatwarpresumablyforseveralmonths.

6. AccordingtotheGreekbiographerofphilosophers,DiogenesLaertius,PlatowassometimesconsideredtohavebeenasonoftheGodApollo(LivesofEminentPhilosophers3.1–2,45).

7. Translation of B. O. Foster,Livy: History of Rome Books I–II, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press,1919).

8. ForSuetonius,IamusingthetranslationofCatharineEdwards,Suetonius:LivesoftheCaesars(Oxford:OxfordUniv.Press,2000).9. For the informationin thisparagraph,seeJohnCollins, inAdelaYarbroCollinsandJohnJ.Collins,KingandMessiahasSonofGod:Divine,Human,andAngelicMessianicFiguresinBiblicalandRelatedLiterature(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2008),53.

10. Therearenumerousvaluablestudiesoftheemperorcult.Foronethathasbecomesomethingofaclassicofmodernscholarship,seeS. R. F. Price,Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in AsiaMinor (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984).Morerecently,seeJeffreyBroddandJonathanReed,RomeandReligion:ACross-DisciplinaryDialogueontheImperialCult(Atlanta:Society of Biblical Literature, 2011). Among studies of the imperial cult in relation to early Christianity, the following two areparticularly noteworthy: Steven J. Friesen, Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins (NewYork:OxfordUniv.Press,2001),andmostrecently,MichaelPeppard,TheSonofGodintheRomanWorld:DivineSonshipinItsSocialandPoliticalContext(NewYork:OxfordUniv.Press,2011).

11. TranslationofH.E.Butler,The InstitutioOratoriaofQuintilian,LoebClassicalLibrary (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniv.Press,1920).

12. Formoreonthispointofview,seetheolderclassicstudybyLilyRossTaylor,TheDivinityoftheRomanEmperor(Middletown,CT:AmericanPhilologicalAssociation,1931).

13. Seethediscussionsinthebookscitedinnote10.14. FromPrice,RitualsandPower,31.15. FromPrice,RitualsandPower,54.16. TranslationofA.M.Harmon,LucianV,LoebClassicalLibrary(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniv.Press,1936).17. Price,RitualsandPower,55.18. For the ideaof adivinepyramid, seeRamsayMacMullen,Paganism in theRomanEmpire (NewHaven,CT:YaleUniv.Press,

1983).19. Foradiscussionofthisview,andwhyitisamistaketoassumeitwhendealingwithantiquity,seeespeciallyPeppard,SonofGod,

9–49.

Chapter2:DivineHumansinAncientJudaism1. For an authoritative account, see E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE (Philadelphia: Trinity Press

International,1992).2. See thescholarlydiscussionsofLorenT.Stuckenbruck,AngelVenerationandChristology (Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1995), and

CharlesA.Gieschen,AngelomorphicChristology:AntecedentsandEarlyEvidence(Leiden:E.J.Brill,1998).3. TheHarperCollinsStudyBible,ed.HaroldW.Attridge(SanFrancisco:HarperOne,2006),88.4. Gieschen,AngelomorphicChristology,68.5. ItisimportanttonotethatthetermsataninJob1and2isnotapropernamebutmeanstheaccuser.ItreferstoanangelinGod’s

divinecourtwhoisintheroleof“prosecutor.”

6. Translationof J.Z.Smith in JamesH.Charlesworth, ed.,TheOldTestamentPseudepigrapha, vol.1,Apocalyptic Literature andTestaments(GardenCity,NY:Doubleday,1983),slightlymodified.

7. TranslationofA.F.J.Klijn,“2(SyriacApocalypseof)Baruch,”inCharlesworth,ed.,TheOldTestamentPseudepigrapha,vol.1.8. TranslationofF.I.Andersen,inCharlesworth,ed.,OldTestamentPseudepigrapha,vol.1.9. LarryW.Hurtado,OneGod,OneLord:EarlyChristianDevotionandAncientJewishMonotheism(London:SCMPress,1988),

82.10. TranslationofE.Isaac,inCharlesworth,ed.,OldTestamentPseudepigrapha,vol.1.11. SeeJohnJ.Collins,“Pre-ChristianJewishMessianism:AnOverview,” inMagnusZetterholm,ed.,TheMessiah inEarly Judaism

andChristianity(Minneapolis:Fortress,2007),16.12. MichaelA.Knibb,“Enoch,Similitudesof(1Enoch37–71),”inJohnC.CollinsandDanielC.Harlow,TheEerdmansDictionaryof

EarlyJudaism(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2010),587.13. Knibb,“Enoch,Similitudes,”587.14. AlanF.Segal,TwoPowersinHeaven:EarlyRabbinicReportsAboutChristianityandGnosticism(Leiden:E.J.Brill,1977).15. For a slightly fuller treatment, with a bibliography for more complete accounts, see Thomas Tobin, “Logos,” in David Noel

Freedman,ed.,TheAnchorBibleDictionary,vol.4(NewYork:Doubleday,1992),348–56.16. AlltranslationsofPhiloarefromC.D.Yonge,TheWorksofPhilo(reprinted.:Peabody,MA:Hendrickson,1993).17. JohnJ.Collins,“TheKingasSonofGod,”inAdelaYarbroCollinsandJohnJ.Collins,KingandMessiahasSonofGod:Divine,

Human,andAngelicMessianicFiguresinBiblicalandRelatedLiterature(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2008),1–24.

Chapter3:DidJesusThinkHeWasGod?1. DaleAllison,JesusofNazareth:MillenarianProphet(Minneapolis:Fortress,1998);BartD.Ehrman,Jesus:ApocalypticProphetoftheNewMillennium(NewYork:OxfordUniv.Press,1999);PaulaFredriksen,JesusofNazareth:KingoftheJews(NewYork:Vintage, 1999); JohnMeier, AMarginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 4 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1991–); E. P.Sanders,TheHistoricalFigureof Jesus (London:AllenLane/PenguinPress, 1993);GezaVermes, Jesus the Jew:AHistorian’sReadingoftheGospels(London:Collins,1973).

2. I discuss these discrepancies, contradictions, and historical problems at length in Jesus, Interrupted (San Francisco: HarperOne,2009).

3. AmongtheclassicstudiesareAlfredB.Lord,TheSingerofTales(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniv.Press,1960),andWalterOng,OralityandLiteracy:TheTechnologizingoftheWord (London:Methuen,1982).Forarecentsurveyofall theimportantstudies,seeStephenE.Young,JesusTraditionintheApostolicFathers(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2011).

4. SeemydiscussioninJesus:ApocalypticProphet,or,forathoroughtreatment,vol.1ofMeier,AMarginalJew.5. See the discussion of the Pharisees in E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66CE (Philadelphia: Trinity Press

International,1992).6. ForafulleraccountseemybookJesus:ApocalypticProphet.7. Ihaveseenthisargumentinvariousformsovertheyears,andIhavetoadmitthatIdonotknowwhooriginallycameupwithit.8. SeemybookJesus:ApocalypticProphet.9. SeeJohnJ.Collins,TheScepterand theStar:TheMessiahsof theDeadSeaScrollsandOtherAncientLiterature (NewYork:

Doubleday,1995).10. SeemybookTheLostGospelofJudasIscariot(NewYork:OxfordUniv.Press,2006),153–70.11. Idonotthinkthatthetraditionofthe“triumphalentry,”whereJesusridesintoJerusalemtotheacclaimofthecrowdwhoacclaim

himthemessiahwhoistocome,canbehistorical.Ifsuchascenehadreallyhappened,Jesuswouldhavebeenarrestedonthespot.12. Seetheworkcitedinnote10.

Chapter4:TheResurrectionofJesus:WhatWeCannotKnow1. ScholarsareinwideagreementthatthefinaltwelveversesofMarkwereaddedbyalatescribe.Thebookalmostcertainlyended

at 16:8. See my discussion in Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (San Francisco:HarperSanFrancisco,2005),65–68.

2. RaymondBrown,TheDeathoftheMessiah:FromGethsemanetotheGrave(NewYork:Doubleday,1994),106.3. Scholars speakof the sevenundisputedPauline letters:Romans, 1 and2Corinthians,Galatians,Philippians, 1Thessalonians, and

Philemon.TheothersixdonotappeartohavebeenwrittenbyPaul.SeemybookForged:WritingintheNameofGod—WhytheBible’sAuthorsAreNotWhoWeThinkTheyAre(SanFrancisco:HarperOne,2011),92–114.

4. HistorianshavehadnumerousdebatesaboutthechronologyofPaul’slife,butitisreasonablyclearthathebecameafollowerofJesustwoorthreeyearsafterJesus’sdeath,basedonthechronologicaldetailsheprovidesinsomeofhisletters,especiallyinGal.1–2, where he writes such things as “three years later” and “after fourteen years.”When one crunches the numbers, it appears

relativelycertainthatifJesusdiedaroundtheyear30,Paulbecamehisfolloweraroundtheyear32or33.5. DanielA.Smith,RevisitingtheEmptyTomb:TheEarlyHistoryofEaster(Minneapolis:Fortress,2010),3.6. Forsomeonewhowantstotaketheaccountashistorical,thebestsolutionisthatJosephwasactingoutofasenseofpiety,wanting

toprovideadecentburial forsomeone—evenanenemy—because thatwas the“right” thingtodo.ButnothinginMark’saccountleadstothissuggestion,sowithinthenarrativeitself,wheretheburialtraditioncomesontheheelsofthetrialtradition,itappearstocreateananomaly.

7. BruceMetzger,“NamesfortheNamelessintheNewTestament:AStudyintheGrowthofChristianTradition,”inPatrickGranfieldandJosefA.Jungmann,eds.,Kyriakon:FestschriftJohannesQuasten,2vols.(Münster:VerlagAschendorff,1970),1:79–99.

8. JohnDominicCrossan, “TheDogsBeneath theCross,” chap.6 inJesus:ARevolutionaryBiography (San Francisco:HarperOne,1994).

9. CitedinMartinHengel,Crucifixion(Philadelphia:Fortress,1977),76.10. Translation from The Works of Horace, Project Guttenberg, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14020/14020-h/14020-

h.htm#THE_FIRST_BOOK_OF_THE_EPISTLES_OF_HORACE.11. CitedinHengel,Crucifixion,54.12. Translation fromRobert J.White,The Interpretation of Dreams: Oneirocritica by Artemidorus (Torrance, CA: Original Books,

1975).13. Hengel,Crucifixion,87.14. QuotedinCrossan,“Dogs,”159.15. TranslationofCharlesSherman,DiodorusSiculus,LoebClassicalLibrary(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniv.Press,1952).16. TranslationofJ.W.CohoonandH.LamarCrosby,DioChrysostom,LoebClassicalLibrary(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniv.Press,

1940).17. Translation of CliffordH.Moore and John Jackson,TacitusHistories, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniv.

Press,1931).18. TranslationofWilliamWhiston,TheWorksofFlaviusJosephus(GrandRapids,MI:BakerBookHouse,1979).19. Crossan,“Dogs,”158.20. TranslationofE.MarySmallwood,LegatioadGaium(Leiden:E.J.Brill,1961).21. See, for example, Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL:

IntervarsityPress,2010),349–54.

Chapter5:TheResurrectionofJesus:WhatWeCanKnow1. MythankstoEricMeyers,scholarofancientJudaismandarchaeologistofPalestine,fromcrosstownrivalDuke,forprovidingthis

informationinaprivatecorrespondence.2. Itisimportanttonote:IamnotdisputingthatPaulandothersthoughtthatJesuswasraisedonthethirdday.I’msayingthatthisview

—importantbecauseitwasafulfillmentofscripture(seepp.140–41)—maynothavearisenuntilweeksormonthslater.3. For the ancient idea that spiritwas stillmadeof “stuff,” seeDaleB.Martin,TheCorinthianBody (NewHaven,CT:YaleUniv.

Press,1995).4. Fora relativelybriefoverview,seemybookLostChristianities:TheBattle forScriptureand theFaithsWeNeverKnew (New

York:OxfordUniv. Press, 2003), chap.6. For themost up-to-date and authoritative treatment, seeDavidBrakke,TheGnostics:Myth,Ritual,andDiversityinEarlyChristianity(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniv.Press,2010).

5. TranslationofJamesBrashlerinJamesM.Robinson,ed.,TheNagHammadiLibraryinEnglish,4thed.(Leiden:E.J.Brill,1996).6. Seemyfullerdiscussiononpp.305–7.7. DaleC.Allison,ResurrectingJesus:TheEarliestChristianTraditionandItsInterpreters(NewYork:T&TClark,2005).8. MyfriendJoelMarcus,NewTestamentscholaratDuke,hasmaintainedthatsomeapocalypticJewsmayhaveheldanalternative

view in which there would be a spiritual, not a physical, resurrection of the dead; he finds this alternative view in the book ofJubilees.Ifthatistrue,thenthiswouldhavebeenverymuchtheminorityviewamongapocalypticists.AnditisnotinevidenceintheteachingsofJesus,asisclearfromhisinsistencethattherewillbe“eatinganddrinking”inthekingdomandthatpeoplewillbe“castout”ofthekingdom,andsoon.IscarcelyneedstressthatifJesus(likemostapocalypticists)understoodthattheresurrectionwouldbephysical,thistoowouldhavebeentheviewofhisfollowers.

9. Richard P. Bentall, “Hallucinatory Experiences,” in Etzel Cardeña, Steven J. Lynn, and Stanley Krippner, eds., Varieties ofAnomalousExperience:ExaminingtheScientificEvidence(Washington,DC:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,2000),86.

10. MichaelR.Licona,TheResurrectionofJesus:ANewHistoriographicalApproach(DownersGrove,IL:IntervarsityPress,2010);N.T.Wright,TheResurrectionoftheSonofGod(Minneapolis:Fortress,2003).

11. GerdLüdemann,TheResurrectionofChrist:AHistoricalInquiry(NewYork:Prometheus,2004),19.12. Michael Goulder, “The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Gavin D’Costa, ed., Resurrection Reconsidered (Oxford: One World,

1996),54–55.13. Allison,ResurrectingJesus,298.

14. Onvisions ofMary, see pp. 198–199; onUFOs, see the fascinating studyofSusanA.Clancy,Abducted:HowPeopleCome toBelieveTheyWereKidnappedbyAliens(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniv.Press,2005).

15. SeeBentall,“HallucinatoryExperiences.”16. Bentall,“HallucinatoryExperiences,”102.17. Allison,ResurrectingJesus,pp.269–82.18. BillGuggenheimandJudyGuggenheim,HellofromHeaven!(NewYork:Bantam,1995).19. See,forexample,RenéLaurentin,TheApparitionsoftheBlessedVirginMaryToday(Dublin:Veritas,1990;Frenchoriginal,1988).

TheexamplesthatIgivebelowarealldrawnfromthisbook.20. I should stress that Wiebe is not a religious fanatic on a mission. He is chair of the philosophy department at Trinity Western

Universityandisaseriousscholar.Still,attheendoftheday,hethinksthatsomething“transcendent”hasledtosomeofthemodernvisionsofJesusthatherecounts.Inotherwords,they—orsomeofthem—areveridical.

21. I am not saying that Paul necessarilymade up the story of the five hundred himself; hemaywell have inherited it from an oraltradition.Moreover,thereisnotellinghowtraditionssuchasthiscometobemadeup—butithappensallthetime,eveninourdayandage.Itisnotalwaystheresultofsomeone“lying”aboutit.Sometimesstoriesjustgetexaggeratedorinvented.

22. See John J. Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in James H. Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol.1, ApocalypticLiteratureandTestaments(GardenCity,NY:Doubleday,1983),n.c2,387.

23. In this case I amusing the termveridical notonly tomean that they saw“something” thatwas really there, but tomean that thesomethingtheysawreallywasJesus.

24. Somemanuscriptsof theGospelofLukecontainanaccountof Jesus’s ascension in24:51.As I argue inmybookTheOrthodoxCorruptionofScripture:TheEffectofEarlyChristologicalControversiesontheTextoftheNewTestament,2nded.(NewYork:OxfordUniv.Press,2011),thatpassagewasprobablyaddedbyscribes;itwasnotwhatLukeoriginallywrote.

Chapter6:TheBeginningofChristology:ChristasExaltedtoHeaven1. SeemybookForged:Writing in theNameofGod—Why theBible’sAuthorsAreNotWhoWeThinkTheyAre (San Francisco:

HarperOne,2011),92–114.2. Forastandardscholarlytreatment,seeJamesD.G.Dunn,ChristologyintheMaking:ANewTestamentInquiryintotheOriginsoftheDoctrineoftheIncarnation,2nded.(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1989),33–36.

3. You can find discussions of all these issues in any good critical commentary.Twoof themost authoritative and hefty areRobertJewett,Romans:ACommentary(Minneapolis:Fortress,2007),andJosephFitzmyer,Romans:ANewTranslationwithIntroductionandCommentary(NewHaven,CT:AnchorBible,1997).

4. Seepp.76–80.5. MichaelPeppard,TheSonofGod in theRomanWorld:DivineSonship in ItsSocialandPoliticalContext (NewYork:Oxford

Univ.Press,2011).6. CitedbyPeppard,SonofGod,84.7. Christiane Kunst, Römische Adoption: Zur Strategie einer Familienorganisation (Hennef: Marthe Clauss, 2005), 294; cited in

translationbyPeppard,SonofGod,54.8. LarryW.Hurtado,OneGod,OneLord:EarlyChristianDevotionandAncientJewishMonotheism(London:SCMPress,1988).A

much fuller treatment can be found in his magnum opus, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2003).

9. SeeRaymondBrown,TheBirthof theMessiah:ACommentaryontheInfancyNarratives in theGospelsofMatthewandLuke(NewYork:Doubleday,1993),29–32.

10. SeeDunn,ChristologyintheMaking.11. SeePeppard,SonofGod,86–131.12. See my brief discussion in Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (San Francisco:

HarperSanFrancisco,2005),158–61;forafulldiscussionatascholarlylevel,seemybookTheOrthodoxCorruptionofScripture:TheEffectofEarlyChristologicalControversiesontheTextoftheNewTestament,2nded.(NewYork:OxfordUniv.Press,2011),73–79.

Chapter7:JesusasGodonEarth:EarlyIncantationChristologies1. Seepp.59–61.2. CharlesA.Gieschen,AngelomorphicChristology:AntecedentsandEarlyEvidence(Leiden:E.J.Brill,1998),27.3. I shouldsay that thisviewofChristas thechiefangelhasnotalwaysbeenapopularoneamongNewTestament scholars. Inno

smallmeasurethisisbecauseChristisneverexplicitlycalledan“angel”thewayheiscalled“SonofMan,”“Lord,”“Messiah,”or“SonofGod” in theNewTestament.This is theview, forexample,ofD.G.Dunn,Christology in theMaking:ANewTestament

Inquiry into theOriginsof theDoctrineof the Incarnation,2nded. (GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1989),158.Butmore recentresearchhasshownthatinpartthereasontheviewofChristasapreexistentangelicbeinghasnotcaughtonmorethoroughlyisthatresearchers think that such a view is inadequately exalted for the early Christians. See, for example, Gieschen,AngelomorphicChristology,andSusanR.Garrett,NoOrdinaryAngel:CelestialSpiritsandChristianClaimsAboutJesus(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniv.Press,2008).

4. Seetheprecedingnote.5. Gieschen,AngelomorphicChristology,andGarrett,NoOrdinaryAngel.6. Garrett,NoOrdinaryAngel,11.7. SeethediscussionofRomans1:3–4onpp.218–25.8. I should stress that even though I am calling this a “poem,” literary scholars in ancient Greece would not have done the same

becauseitdoesnotscan.Wedonotknowwhatthenonliteraryelite(thatis,thecommonpeople)wouldhaveacceptedorunderstoodtobepoetry—orhymns—simplybecausewehaveno recordof theirviews.Butwhateverwecall thisunit, it clearly iswritten inmoreexalted language than the surroundingpartsof the letter, and inEnglishusagewe typically consider thesekindsof exaltedcompositionstobepoems,whethertheyscanornot.

9. ThefullestandbestknownisRalphP.Martin,AHymnofChrist:Philippians2:5–11inRecentInterpretationandintheSettingofEarlyChristianWorship(DownersGrove,IL:IntervarsityPress,1997).

10. See the discussion of James D. G. Dunn, “Christ, Adam, and Preexistence,” in Ralph P.Martin and Brian J. Dodd, eds.,WhereChristologyBegan:EssaysonPhilippians2(Louisville,KY:WestminsterJohnKnox,1998),74–83.

11. For a discussion ofVollenweider’s views, see the helpful article byAdelaYarbroCollins, “Psalms, Philippians 2:6–11, and theOriginsofChristology,”BiblicalInterpretation11(2002):361–72.

12. TheTetragrammaton in theHebrewBible,YHWH(=Yahweh),which serves as thepersonalnameofGod,was translated in theGreek version by the termKurios, which comes into English as “Lord.” And so, when the text indicates that every tongue willconfessthat“JesusisLord,”itappearstomeanthateveryonewillacknowledgethatJesushastheverynameofYahwehhimself.Itisimportanttonote,however,thatJesusisstilldifferentiatedfromGodtheFather,sinceallthisistohappentotheFather’s“glory.”

13. SeethefullerdiscussionsinRobertJewett,Romans:ACommentary(Minneapolis:Fortress,2007),andJosephFitzmyer,Romans:ANewTranslationwithIntroductionandCommentary(NewHaven,CT:AnchorBible,1997).

14. AfamousinstanceoccursinJohn3,inwhichdifferenttranslatorsthinkJesus’swordsendat3:15(beforethefamousline“ForGodsolovedtheworld....”),andothersthinktheycontinueuntil3:21.Jesusandthenarratorsoundsomuchalikethatitisimpossibletoknowforcertainwhereonestopsspeakingandtheotherbegins.

15. Ontheproblemsofusingthetermpoem,seenote8onp.381.ThesameissuesapplyhereasinthecaseofPhil.2:6–11.16. AmongthemanyfinecriticalcommentariesontheGospelofJohnthatdealwiththeseissues,seeespeciallytheclassicbyRaymond

Brown,TheGospelAccordingtoJohn:Introduction,Translation,andNotes,vol.1(GardenCity,NY:Doubleday,1996).17. Seenote15onp.375.18. See my discussion in Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (San

Francisco:Harper-One,2011),112–14;foranextensivescholarlytreatment,seemybookForgeryandCounterforgery:TheUseofLiteraryDeceitinEarlyChristianPolemics(NewYork:OxfordUniv.Press,2013),171–82.

Chapter8:AftertheNewTestament:ChristologicalDeadEndsoftheSecondandThirdCenturies

1. SeemydiscussioninLostChristianities:TheBattleforScriptureandtheFaithsWeNeverKnew(NewYork:OxfordUniv.Press,2003).

2. AnumberoftheseheresiespersistedinmarginalgroupswithinChristianity,andsomeofthemreemergedatdifferenttimesandplacesoverhistory;buttheorthodoxchurchdeemedthemfalsepaths.

3. TranslationofJ.H.MacmahoninAlexanderRobertsandJamesDonaldson,eds.,AnteNiceneFathers,vol.5(reprinted.:Peabody,MA:Hendrickson,1994).

4. TranslationofG.A.Williamson,Eusebius:TheHistoryoftheChurchfromChristtoConstantine(London:Penguin,1965).5. ThisisthethesisofmybookTheOrthodoxCorruptionofScripture:TheEffectofEarlyChristologicalControversiesontheTextoftheNewTestament,2nded.(NewYork:OxfordUniv.Press,2011).

6. All translations of Ignatius are frommy edition in theLoebClassicalLibrary,TheApostolicFathers (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniv.Press,2003),vol.1.

7. The classic study ofMarcion isAdolf vonHarnack,Marcion: TheGospel of theAlienGod, trans. John E. Steely and LyleD.Bierma(Durham,NC:Labyrinth,1990;Germanoriginalofthe2nded.,1924).Foramodernoverview,seemyLostChristianities,103–9.

8. SeeKarenKing,WhatIsGnosticism?(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniv.Press,2003);MichaelA.Williams,RethinkingGnosticism:AnArgumentforDismantlingaDubiousCategory(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniv.Press,1996);andDavidBrakke,TheGnostics:Myth,Ritual,andDiversityinEarlyChristianity(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniv.Press,2010).

9. ThetraditionalstoryofthediscoverycanbefoundintheIntroductionbyJamesM.Robinson,inJamesM.Robinson,ed.,TheNagHammadiLibraryinEnglish,4thed.(Leiden:E.J.Brill,1996).

10. TranslationofBirgerPearson,NagHammadiCodexVII(Leiden:E.J.Brill,1996).11. IdonotmeantosaythatthebooksthatlaterbecametheNewTestamentwhichembracedsuchviews—forexample,Matthewand

Mark—were considered heretical. But when exaltation Christologies were no longer acceptable, these sacred books wereinterpretedinsuchawaythattheywerenolongerthoughttocontainexaltationChristologies.

12. TranslationofPeterHolmes inAlexanderRobertsandJamesDonaldson,eds.,AnteNiceneFathers, vol.3 (reprint ed.:Peabody,MA:Hendrickson,1994).

13. AviewthattheFathersufferedwasnotonlyrepugnantbecauseitseemedillogicalthattheCreatorofallwouldexperiencepain,butalsobecauseinancientwaysofthinking,sufferingnecessarilyinvolvesapersonalchange(onewasnotsuffering;nowoneis).ButGodisunchangeable.AndsoitwasunthinkablethatGodcouldsuffer.MythankstoMariaDoerflerforthisinsight.

14. ForanaccountofOrigen’slifeandteachings,seeJosephW.Trigg,Origen:TheBibleandPhilosophyintheThird-CenturyChurch(Atlanta:JohnKnox,1983).

15. TranslationofG.W.Butterworth,Origen:OnFirstPrinciples(Gloucester,MA:PeterSmith,1973).16. Ifthisnotionofthepreexistenceofsoulsseemsbizarretosomepeopletoday,itdidnotseemaltogetheroddforancientthinkers,as

itcouldbefoundinGreekphilosopherssuchasPlato.17. One of the reasons Origen’s views came to be so heartily rejected by later orthodox theologians was that his view of the

preexistenceand“fall”ofthesoulswasconsideredhighlytroubling.IfthesesoulsfellandweregiventhechanceonceagaintobesavedthroughtheworkofChrist,whatguaranteecould therebe thatonce theyweresavedandreturnedtoaplace inwhichtheycontemplatethegloriesofGodforevertheywouldnotfallyetagain,startingtheprocessover?ForsomeChristiantheologians,thisviewcreatedenormousuncertaintiesconcerningthefinalityofsalvationandtheassurancethatablessedeternallifewaitedforthosewhobelievedinChrist.

18. As Larry Hurtado has especially emphasized; see his One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient JewishMonotheism (London:SCMPress,1988), andLordJesusChrist:Devotion to Jesus inEarliestChristianity (GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2003).

Chapter9:Ortho-ParadoxesontheRoadtoNicea1. TranslationofThomasB.Falls,SaintJustinMartyr(Washington,DC:CatholicUniv.ofAmericaPress,1948).2. TranslationofRussellJ.DeSimone,Novatian(Washington,DC:CatholicUniv.PressofAmerica,1974).3. TranslationofHenryBettenson,DocumentsoftheChristianChurch,2nded.(Oxford:OxfordUniv.Press,1963).4. SeethediscussioninFranzDünzel,ABriefHistoryoftheDoctrineoftheTrinityintheEarlyChurch,trans.JohnBowden(London:

T&TClark,2007),41–49.5. TranslationofStuartHallinJ.Stevenson,ed.,ANewEusebius:DocumentsIllustratingtheHistoryoftheChurchtoAD337,rev.

ed.(London:SPCK,1987).6. TranslationofEdwardRochieHardy,ChristologyoftheLaterFathers(Philadelphia:Westminster,1954).7. Translation ofAndrewS. Jacobs inBartD. Ehrman andAndrewS. Jacobs,Christianity in Late Antiquity: 300–450C.E. (New

York:OxfordUniv.Press,2004).8. Somescholarshavequestionedwhether thepersecutionofChristianswasactually the intention that laybehindDecius’sedict.The

edictrequiredallinhabitantsoftheempiretoperformasacrificetothetraditionalgodsandtoreceiveacertificateindicatingthattheyhaddone so.Christians,of course,werenot able toperform the sacrificesbecauseof their religiouscommitments, and theywerepunished upon their refusal. The question is whether the point of the edict was to weed out Christians or instead to affirm theimportanceofpaganreligiousritual.Eitherway,Christianswhorefusedtofollowthedictatesoftheedictsufferedasaconsequence.

9. OnthegrowthrateofearlyChristianity,seeRamsayMacMullen,ChristianizingtheRomanEmpire(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniv.Press,1984).

10. TranslationofAverilCameronandStuartHall,TheLifeofConstantine(NewYork:OxfordUniv.Press,1999).11. Forabriefandprecisediscussion,seeDünzel,BriefHistory,49–60;andJosephF.Kelly,TheEcumenicalCouncilsoftheCatholic

Church:AHistory (Collegeville,MN:Liturgical Press, 2009), 11–25. For a scholarly assessment of the theological issues, seeLewisAyres,NicaeaandItsLegacy:AnApproachtoFourth-CenturyTrinitarianTheology(Oxford:OxfordUniv.Press,2004),1–61.

12. TranslationfromJ.N.D.Kelly,EarlyChristianCreeds,3rded.(London:Longman,1972).13. Seethebookscitedinnote11above.

Epilogue1. Among the classic studies of Jewish-Christian relations in antiquity and the rise of Christian anti-Judaism, still very much worth

reading,areMarcelSimon,VerusIsrael:AStudyoftheRelationsBetweenChristiansandJewsintheRomanEmpire(135–425),

trans. H.McKeating (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1986; French original, 1964); Rosemary Ruether,Faith and Fratricide: TheTheologicalRootsofAnti-Semitism(NewYork:Seabury,1974);andJohnGager,TheOriginsofAnti-Semitism:AttitudesTowardJudaisminPaganandChristianAntiquity(NewYork:OxfordUniv.Press,1983).

2. Translation ofGerald F.Hawthorn, “ANewEnglishTranslation ofMelito’s PaschalHomily,” inCurrent Issues in Biblical andPatristicInterpretation(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1975).

3. SeeRuether,FaithandFratricide.Irelyonheraccounthere.4. SomescholarshavequestionedwhetherAmbroseactuallyplayedas significant a role in this controversyashecontends in these

letters. However one decides the issue, it is quite clear that Christian leaders had assumed previously unheard-of power in theirrelationshiptothestateauthoritiesbythistime.

5. InadditiontoLewisAyres,NicaeaandItsLegacy:AnApproachtoFourth-CenturyTrinitarianTheology(Oxford:OxfordUniv.Press, 2004), see the following two useful anthologies of texts from the period, with introductions: Richard A. Norris, TheChristological Controversy (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), and William G. Rusch, The Trinitarian Controversy (Philadelphia:Fortress,1980).

6. MartinHengel,“ChristologicalTitlesinEarlyChristianity,”inStudiesinEarlyChristology(Edinburgh:T&TClark,1995),383.

SCRIPTUREINDEX

Thepaginationof this electronic editiondoesnotmatch the edition fromwhich itwas created.Tolocateaspecificentry,pleaseuseyoure-bookreader ’ssearchtools.

Genesis,51,56,58,60,62,63,68,72,259,261,275,328,3321:1,2751:26,68,328,3321:27,2592:16–17,2593:5,2595,605:24–27,606,62,63,776:2,626:4,6216,5516:7,5616:13,5618,33218:1–2,5618:13,5619,7219:1,56

Exodus,51–52,56,68,69,80,124,261,278,3273,278,3273:1–22,56,574,804:10,804:16,8119–20,8220:2–3,5224:9–10,68–6933:20,69

Leviticus,51

Numbers,51,26113:3,6220:11,261

Deuteronomy,51,25821:23,25834:5–6,60

1Samuel,76–77,1143:1,743:6,7410:1,11416:13,114

2Samuel,114

7,76,1147:12–14,777:16,114

1Kings,20517:17–24,205

Job,581,58

Psalms,52,57–58,77,78,79,117,209,226,227,239,281,328,3322,772:7,77,226,227,23922,11745:6,328,33245:6–7,7982,57,5882:6–7,5889,7789:20,7789:27,77110:1,78,209,227,328,332

Proverbs,52,70–71,267,275,276,3408,70,267,275,3408:22–23,2758:22–25,708:27–30,2758:27–31,718:35,2768:35–36,71

Isaiah,52,53,54,79,80,117,242,243,3286:1–6,547:14,2429:6–7,8044:6,31045:5,5245:22–23,52,26545:51,32853,117

Jeremiah,52

Daniel,64–66,687,64,65,687:13,657:27,65

Hosea,1416:2,14111:1,77

Amos,52

Jonah,1412,141

Matthew,4,90–92,94–97,103,107–9,125,127,215,248,251,270,291,312,383n111:23,24211:27,31212:39–41,14113:40–43,10418:26,12719:28,10924,13624:13,13524:27,10424:37–39,10424:46,13624:49–51,13524:53,13524–25,12125:31–46,107,10825:32,10825:35–36,10825:40,10825:41,10825:45,10828,13428:7,13528:9,16928:16–20,13528:17,190

Mark,4,5,90–92,94–97,102,103,107,123,125,138,239,246,248,249,251,270,305,377n6,383n111:9–11,2381:10,3055:21–43,2058:38,1079:1,10213,12113:24–27,10313:30,102,10314,13614:28,13614:53,15114:55,15214:62,15214:64,15215:2,12315:26,12315:34,30515:43,15115:44–47,15215:48,15216,13416:1–8,14224:11,18424:13–53,184

Luke,4,90–92,94–97,103,125,239,246,248,251,270,2911:1–4,1531:26–38,141:35,24,241,2423:7–9,1103:22,2398:1–3,19213:1,16217:24,10417:26–27,10417:30,10421:34–36,10422:30,10923:39–43,15624,134,19024:10–11,19024:13–31,19124:36–37,18124:37–43,19024:39,181,18224:39–40,16924:41–43,169

John,4,5,8,86,87,90–92,94–97,103,105,124–25,246,248–49,269–79,297–98,300,312,327,332,381n141:1,271,274,2751:1–2,11:1–4,3271:1–18,2741:3,2751:3–4,2761:4–5,2741:5,2761:6,2661:10,2761:11,276,2771:12,2771:13,2771:14,1,271,276,3271:17,2711:17–18,2771:18,3124:2–3,3275:17–18,2725:18,2788:58,124,248,272,278,32710:30,124,248,272,278,312,32711:1–44,20514:6,8714:8–9,27214:9,124,248,278,32717:4,27817:4–5,27217:5,24817:24,124,27219:38–42,156

20:1–10,19020:1–13,18520:14–16,19120:14–18,18520:20,19020:24–28,182,19020:24–29,16920:28,272,32720–21,13421:4–8,19121:9–14,169

Acts,21–22,135,138,154,155,207,215,216,217,218,236,2401:35,2401–2,1351–3,191,2072:36,227–283:22,2405,2285:30–31,2295:31,228–2913,15413:28–29,15413:29,155,22513:32–33,225–2613:33,240,29414:8–18,21

Romans,166,215,218–25,260,267,268,295,3101:3–4,218–25,226,2945,2605:18–19,2608:3,267,2959:5,268,269,31016:7,166

1Corinthians,137–42,155,175,176–78,181–82,184–86,192,203,215,217,220,253,257,261,262,266,268,3662:2,2573:1,2534:8,1768:6,26810:4,261,26611:22–25,13815,137,140,17615:3–5,142,153,175,184,186,21715:3–8,13715:4,15515:5,19215:8,18415:20,20315:24–28,36615:35–36,17715:40–44,17715:47,262,26615:50,182

15:51–53,111

2Corinthians,215,253,2682:17,2534:4,268

Galatians,109,215,252–53,257–58,2961:15–16,1842:15–16,1092:21,1093:10–13,2584:4,267,2964:14,252,253

Ephesians,544:5,3476:12,54

Philippians,215,253–66,2962,254–662:5,2542:6–11,2532:7,2962:9,2782:10–11,264

Colossians,2801:15,3441:15–20,2801:16,54

1Thessalonians,213,214,2154:17,111

Philemon,215

Hebrews,280–81,3431:2,3431:2–4,2811:5–8,2812:5–9,281

1John,296–981:1–3,2971:1–14,2972:18–19,2964:2–3,297

Revelation,64

SUBJECTANDAUTHORINDEX

Thepaginationof this electronic editiondoesnotmatch the edition fromwhich itwas created.Tolocateaspecificentry,pleaseuseyoure-bookreader ’ssearchtools.

Aaron,80–81Abraham,55–56,58–59,72,124,250,327,331,332Achaia,214Acts,21–22,135,138,154,155,215,216,217,218,236,240exaltationofJesus,218,225–29

AdamandEve,259–62Christpoemand,259–62

adoption,232–34adoptionists,230–40,291–95,302,328,335After-DeathCommunications,196–97Ahaz,242Alcmena,23–24AlexanderofAlexandria,339,341,342,343–44Ariancontroversyand,344–52,357LetterofAlexander,343,344

AlexanderSeverus,14AlexandertheGreat,22–23,24,30,126,160Alexandria,8,315,337–43Allison,Dale,88,185,189,195Ambrose,Bishop,364,385n4Amphytrion,23–24AngeloftheLord,55–57,72,83,331Jesusas,250–51,252–54,264,267,269,278,331–32

angels,5,54–64,83,134–35,147,250,331–32,380n3inancientJudaism,55–64,250asGodandhuman,57–59humanswhobecome,59–61Watchers,63–64,66

annunciation,226anthropology,93antichrists,296–98,327Antioch,298,348AntiochofPisidia,154AntiochusIII,33–34Antipas,Herod,203anti-supernaturalbias,143–44,174Antony,Mark,27–28apocalypse,59–60,63,65,99–112,286terminology,99ApocalypseofAbraham,58–59apocalypticism,99–112,130,378n8ofJesus,103–12,118,119,121,130,185–86,197,203,353–55

Apollo,28,29,40,41Apollinaris,367–68Apollonius,12–18,22,150,373n3historicalandlegendary,13–16parallelstoJesusstory,12–18

apologists,172–73,199,311Aramaic,90,140,223,227,271archaeology,48Ariancontroversy,8–9,315,344–52,356–57,365,366,367

Arius,8–9,339–52,356–57,365,366,367Thalia,341–42

Artemidorus,158DreamBook,158

Assyria,242astrology,63Athanasius,342,349,357,367atheism,147Athena,40,41Athens,160Atia,29Augustus,Caesar,27,28,29–30,31,34,49,160,233,264,358Aurelian,14authorities,54

Babylon,65,114baptism,97,110–11,237–40,285,289,305JesusasSonofGodat,237–40,289–95

Baptists,285Barnabas,21Baruch,2762Baruch,59Baucis,19–20,21,22belief,173–74ofdisciples,inresurrection,174–83,204–10ofearliestChristians,213–18false,328

benefaction,33–34Bentall,Richard,“HallucinatoryExperiences,”193,194bereavementvisions,195–97Bethany,135Bianchini,MariaEsperanzaMedranode,198BigBangtheory,144binitaryworship,235birth,JesusasSonofGodat,240–44BookoftheWatchers,63–64,66Brown,Raymond,135–36,236–37Buddha,131Buddhism,147burialpracticesforcriminals,Roman,156–65

Caesar,Julius,27–28,145,233Caesarea,121,161,162Caesarion,233Caligula,31–32Callinicum,364Callistus,309Capernaum,175,205Caracalla,14Caria,157Carthage,311Celestine,Pope,369Cephas,141,153cherubim,54,83Chicago,86,87Christ(term),111–12,116Christianity,1–9,13,17,38,50–51,112–17,130–31beliefsofearliestChristians,213–18CouncilofNicea,349–52,356,357

demiseinthemodernworld,172earlyChristologies,211–46,247–82offourthandfifthcenturies,325–26,340–52,356–70GodChristand,365–70hereticviews,286–321,326,366–70orthodox,323–52resurrectionnarrative,129–69,171–210riseof,43–44,49,174,197,245Romeand,291–95,309–11,330,339–60,384n8ofsecondandthirdcenturies,283–321,330–39terminology,213SeealsoGospels;JesusChrist;NewTestament;OldTestament;specificbooks

Christology,4,7,204,208adoptionist,230–40,291–95,302,328,335Arianism,339–52,356–57,365–67backwardmovementof,236–44baptismofJesusand,237–40,289–95beginningsof,211–46beliefsofearliestChristians,213–18birthofJesusand,240–44ofDionysiusofRome,337–39docetic,295–302,305,328earlyhereticviews,286–321evaluatingearliestviewsofChrist,230–35exaltation,218–46,249–51,266,279,282,289,308fourthandfifthcentury,325–26,340–52,356–70Gnostic,178–80,302–7,309,311,324,328heretic,286–321,326,366–70hetero-orthodoxies,307–19high,4,231,252,259,277–78incarnation,249–82,295,297–98JesusasGodonearth,249–82ofJustinMartyr,330–34low,4,230–35,252modalist,308–25,335,337ofNovatian,335–37oldestsurvivingsources,213–16ofOrigen,315–19orthodox,323–52ofsecondandthirdcenturies,283–321,330–39separationist,305–7,309terminology,4,204

circumcision,50Cleopatra,233Collins,John,78CommonEra,137commongraves,160–61Confucius,131Connell,Janice,MeetingswithMary:VisionsoftheBlessedMother,199conservativeevangelicals,143–44,171–72,285Constantine,8,329,339–41,344–52,357–60,363,365Ariancontroversyand,344–52,357

contextualcredibility,criterionof,98CopticApocalypseofPeter,179–80,181,306Copticchurch,198–99,303Corinth,137,138,178,181Cosgrove,Charles,253–54

CouncilofChalcedon,370CouncilofConstantinople,357,367,368CouncilofEphesus,369CouncilofNicea,326,329,341,349–52,356,357,365–67creation,72,275creeds,216–17,218–25,323Nicene,2,9,323–25,350–52,357,366,367

Crete,15Crossan,JohnDominic,157,163crucifixion,6,45,91,96,97,116,123–24,149,156–60,167,175,179–80,246,258,272,325Romanpracticesof,156–60scavenginganimalsand,157–61,163

cult,30–34emperor,30–34,49terminology,30

Cynics,35–38

daimones,41–42David,King,76,77,80,114,115,208,209,221,222,224DeadSeaScrolls,99,105,113–14Decius,345,384n8deification,28,31,39–40demons,64devil,100DioChrysostum,Discourses,160Diocletian,345DiodorusSiculus,LibraryofHistory,160DionysiusofAlexandria,337–39DionysiusofRome,337–39disciples,90,92,109,111,119,128,135–36,213,238,244–45,286,293,296,352beliefinresurrection,174–83,204–10resurrectionand,135–38,149,168,169,174–210visionsofJesus,183–204Seealsospecificdisciples

dissimilarity,criterionof,96–97,106–9,127divineeconomy,313–14divinehypostases,69–75,83,273–81Wisdom,70–72,74,75Word,70,72–75

divinepyramid,40–42,54divinity,3–9,17,18–45angelswhotemporarilybecomehuman,55–61divinebeingsbornofagodandamortal,22–24divinebeingswhobegetsemidivinebeings,62–64divinehumansinancientJudaism,47–84exaltationChristology,218–46,249–51,266,279,282,289,308fourth-andfifth-centuryviewson,325–26,340–52,356–70godswhotemporarilybecamehuman,19–22,249–82hereticviewsinearlychurch,286–321humanwhobecomesdivine,25–38,76–82incarnationChristology,249–82Jesusand,43–45,61,124–28,206–10,211–46,247–82,285–321,330–52,356–70JesusasGod,353–71kingofIsrael,76–80MosesasGod,80–82paththatdenies,289–95pyramid,40–42RomanandGreekmodelsofhumandivinity,18–43

second-andthird-centuryviewson,285–321,330–39two-powersheresy,67–69

docetists,295–302,305,328opposedbyIgnatius,298–300opposedin1John,296–98

dominions,54Domitian,15,31“doubttradition,”andresurrection,189–92dreams,158,196dualism,99–100

Ebionites,290–91Egypt,8,29,51,56–57,77,78,80,120,126,179,198–99,261,303,315,337,339–52,361Ehrman,BartD.:Jesus:ApocalypticProphetoftheNewMillennium,88MisquotingJesus,239

Elijah,127,205,239,260Elisha,127Elohim,79Emmaus,roadto,191emperorcult,30–34,49,234emptytomb,164–69,173,184–86,190,206needfor,168–69womenat,166–68,184–85,191

Enlightenment,172,284Enoch,59–60,63–64,66–67,83,113,126,2601Enoch,63–64,66–67,101,105,1132Enoch,60Episcopalianism,51,130EusebiusofCaesarea,16,17,292–94,341,347–49ChurchHistory,293–94TheLifeoftheBlessedEmperorConstantine,347,348,358–60

evil,99–102,204,259,355exaltation,5,7,8,218–46,249–51Actsand,218,225–29Christology,218–46,249–51,266,279,282,289,308Gospelsand,236–46JesusasexaltedSonofGod,244–46,249–51Pauland,218–30Romansand,218–25transformationintoincarnationChristology,249–51,282

exodus,51,56,72,76,120,261Exorcist,The(film),42EzekieltheTragedian,61

Fredriksen,Paula,88fundamentalism,88,144,172

Gabriel,54,64,241Galatians,109,215,252–53,257–58,296Christasanangelin,252–53,267

Galilee,1,45,49,125,134,135–36,167,175,205,234,244,352Garrett,Susan,252Gieschen,Charles,57,250,252Gnosticism,168,178–80,181,302–7,309,311,324,328terminology,302–3

God,Mosesas,80–82GodofIsrael,69

Godonearth,Jesusas,249–82goodandevil,99–100,259,355Goranson,Evan,86,87Gospels,17,86–98,102,126,166,286,373n3backwardmovementofChristologyand,236–44baptismnarratives,237–40birthnarratives,240–44exaltationChristology,236–46incarnationChristology,269–79,297–98problemsandmethodsofhistoricalJesus,87–98resurrectionnarratives,133–36,140–43,151–56,162,168–69,181–83,189–92visionsofJesus,189–92,201–4Seealsospecificgospels

Goulder,Michael,188–89Graham,Billy,86Greece,ancient,5,13,11–43,47,48,49,65,72,73,81,94,264,273commongravesusedforcriminals,160–61divinebeingsbornofagodandamortal,22–24divinepyramid,40–42godswhotemporarilybecomehuman,19–22humanwhobecomesdivine,25–38modelsofdivinehumans,18–43

Greeklanguage,88,90,227,243,245,253–55,263,271,303,312,351Guggenheim,BillandJudy,196–97

Hades,59Hagar,56,250hallucinations,187,189,193–95,202Handel,GeorgFriedrich,Messiah,79,132HarperCollinsStudyBible,57healing,148,237Hebrew,88,223,243HebrewBible,51–52,53,54,59,60,70–74,76,78,81,114,116–17,124,126,127,141,205,208,226,250,251,261,265,278,

286–87,381n12Hengel,Martin,158,370–71henotheism,53Hera,40,41Hercules,23–24,241heresiologists,290,303,319heresy,8,285,286–321,329,335,366,382n2adoptionists,291–95,302,328,335ofApollinaris,367–68Arianism,339–52,356–57,365,366,367docetists,295–302,305,328inearlychurch,286–321,326,366–70Gnostic,178–80,302–7,309,311,324,328hetero-orthodoxies,307–19ofMarcellus,366–67Marcionites,300–302,304,305,309,311modalism,308–15,335,337ofNestorius,368–70Origen,315–19paththatdeniesdivinity,289–95paththatdenieshumanity,295–302paththatdeniesunity,302–7terminology,285,287–88,319two-powers,67–69

Hermes,21heterodoxy,287–88,319hetero-orthodoxies,307–19Hezekiah,King,80Hierocles,16–17TheLoverofTruth,16

Hinduism,147,285Hippolytus,290–91,292,303,307,309–15,329,335modalismattackedby,309–15RefutationofAllHeresies,291,292,309–11

Holocaust,145Homer,40Iliad,40Odyssey,40

Horace,158Epistle,158

humanrealm,4angelswhotemporarilybecomehuman,55–61divinebeingsbornofagodandamortal,22–24divinehumansinancientJudaism,47–84fourth-andfifth-centuryviewson,325–26,340–52,356–70godswhotemporarilybecomehuman,19–22,249–82humanwhobecomesdivine,25–38,76–82JesusasGodonearth,249–82paththatdenies,295–302RomanandGreekmodelsofhumandivinity,18–43second-andthird-centuryviewson,285–321,330–39

Hurtado,Larry,61,235hymns,216–17hypostases,divine,69–75,83,273–81hypostasis(term),69–70hysteria,188

Ignatius,298–300docetistsopposedby,298–300

imminence,102incarnationChristology,8,249–82,295,297–98Adamand,259–62beyond,282exaltationChristologytransformedinto,249–51,282inJohn,249,266,269–79inLettertotheColossians,280inLettertotheHebrews,280–81inPaul,251–69,270,280inPhilippiansChristPoem,253,254–66,267,278,281

independentattestation,criterionof,95–96Inquisition,144Iphicles,24Irenaeus,303,307Islam,38,147,199,284–85Israel,51–52,65–66,98,114–15,116,242,261,265,301kingof,76–80,114,119

Jacob,58,331,332Jairus,205James,192,203,238,291Jaoel,59

Jerome,DialogueAgainstLuciferians,357Jerusalem,45,97,114,120,134,135,136,155,159,162,166,175,228,245Jesus’slastPassoverin,120–21,376n11Temple,114

JesusChrist,1–9,28,39asAngeloftheLord,250–54,264,267,269,278,331–32asanapocalypticist,103–12,118,119,121,130,185–86,197,203,353–55arrestandtrialof,45,91,122–23,152,161–63,175beginningsofChristologyand,211–46burialbyJosephofArimathea,151–56,163,377n6claimstobeGod,124–28conceptionof,240–44CouncilofNiceaand,349–52,357crucifixionof,seecrucifixiondivinerealmand,43–45,61,124–28,206–10,211–46,247–82,285–321,330–52,356–70earlyhereticviewson,286–321,366–70emptytomb,164–69,184–86,190,206evaluatingearliestviewsof,230–35exaltedtoheaven,218–46,249–51,266,279,282,289,308asexaltedSonofGod,244–46,249–51fourth-andfifth-centuryviewson,325–26,340–52,356–70Gnosticviewon,178–80,302–7asGod,353–71asGodonearth,249–82hereticalviewsof,286–321historical,6,49–50,84,85–128,130,132,133–51historicalandculturalcontext,98–102incarnationChristology,249–82,295,297–98Judaismand,50,76,98–128,156–57,161–63,202–3,205,214,220,245,268,287,290–91,354,360–65asLogosofGod,332–34oftheLordasGodandhuman,55–57,72,83,250–54,264,267,269,278asmessiah,113,115–24,206–10,214,218–30messianicself-understanding,118–24parallelstoApolloniusstory,12–18PassoverinJerusalem,120–21,376n11problemsandmethodsofhistoricalJesus,87–98raisingofmortalbody,180–83raisingofspirit,178–80raisingofspiritualbody,176–78resurrectionof,seeresurrectionassecondAdam,259–62second-andthird-centuryviewsof,283–321,330–39self-imageof,112–18asSonofGodathisbaptism,237–40,289–95asSonofGodathisbirth,240–44visionsof,183–204,379n20

JewishApocrypha,71–72John,238,2961John,296docetistsand,296–98

John,Gospelof,4,5,8,86,87,90–92,94–97,103,105,124–25,246,248–49,269–79,297–98,300,312,327,332,381n14elevatedteachingsaboutJesusin,271–72incarnationChristology,249,266,269–79Jesus’sclaimsofdivinityin,124–25,271–72Prologue,272,273–79,297resurrectionnarrative,134–36,142,156,162,169,182,183,190,191,192,202,205

JohntheBaptist,96,97,99,110–11,203,238,266,274apocalypticmessageof,110–11

Joseph,241JosephofArimathea,7,142,150,151–52,225burialofJesus,151–56,163,377n6

Josephus,94,162AntiquitiesoftheJews,162–63

Judah,242Judaism,ancient,3,5,9,18,24,38,39,44,45,47–84,147,161–63,250,264–65,286–87,290,360–65intheancientworld,50–51angelsin,55–64,250apocalypticism,99–102,118,119,121,130,197,203,354,378n8divinebeingswhobegetsemidivinebeings,62–64divinebeingswhotemporarilybecomehuman,55–61divinehumansin,47–84divinehypostases,69–75divinemen,83–84Ebionitesand,290–91ethicalcodes,50–52festivals,50,120,159GodChristand,360–65humanswhobecomedivine,76–82Jesusand,50,76,98–128,156–57,161–63,202–3,205,214,220,245,268,287,290–91,354,360–65Jesusasmessiah,113,115–24,206–10,214kingofIsrael,76–80,114,119kosherfoodlaws,50,51,361messiah,113–15MosesasGod,80–82persecutionof,363–64resurrectionand,156–57,161–63,214ritualpractices,50,51,113,156–57,290,361–64SonofMan,64–68,83,106–9,113,118,119,209spectrumofdivinityin,52–55synagogues,363–64twopowersinheaven,67–69widespreadbeliefs,51–52

JudasIscariot,109,119–22Judea,6,114,120–21,135,161–62judgment,101Juno,32Jupiter,19–20,23,24,27,32,40,78JustinMartyr,293,330–34Apologies,330–34DialoguewithTrypho,330–34

Juvenal,158Satires,158

kingofIsrael,76–80,114,119,209Kunst,Christiane,233

L,95,96,97,103,125,249,270onJesus’sapocalypticmessage,104

Laodice,34Laurentin,René,198–99Lazarus,203,205Licinius,345Licona,Mike,188

“TheLittleLabyrinth,”292–94Livy,25HistoryofRome,25,26,27

Locrians,160Logie,Kenneth,200–201Logos,70,72–75,273,274–78,281,340–41,368JesusasLogosofGod,332–34

Lord(term),228Losch,M.E.,193Lot,72Lourdes,France,199LucianofSamosata,42ThePassingofPeregrinus,35–38

Lüdemann,Gerd,188Lukeandhisearliertraditions,229–30Luke,Gospelof,4,90–92,94–97,103,125,239,246,248,251,270,291baptismin,239–40birthofJesusin,240–41,242,243resurrectionnarrative,134–36,143,153–54,156,162,169,181–85,190–92,202

Lutheranism,130,285Lystra,21

M,95,96,97,103,107,125,249,270onJesus’sapocalypticmessage,104

Macedonia,214MarcellusofAncyra,366–67Marcion,300–302,304,305,309,311,324MarcusAncius,27Mark,Gospelof,4,5,90–92,94–97,102,103,107,123,125,138,239,246,248,249,251,270,305,377n6,383n11baptismin,238–39onJesus’sapocalypticmessage,103resurrectionnarrative,134–36,142,151–56,165,166–68,184,190,205

Mars,25,27,32,78Martin,Dale,48Mary,18,24,134,144,150,191,192,226,241,368–69birthofJesus,241–43visionsof,198–99,202

MaryMagdalene,134,152,184–85,190,191,192,213matter,73,74Logosand,73–74

Matthew,Gospelof,4,90–92,94–97,103,107–9,125,127,215,248,251,270,291,312,383n11birthofJesusin,242–44resurrectionnarrative,134–36,142,143,156,162,168–69,190,206

McKellar,P.,193Media,65Mediterranean,214,218Meier,John,AMarginalJew,87–88Melito,360–62Mercury,19–20,40messiah,67,113–24Jesusas,113,115–24,206–10,214,218–30Jewish,113–15terminology,67,113–15

metallurgy,63Methodism,130,285Methusaleh,60Metzger,Bruce,155“NamesfortheNameless,”155

Meyer,Paul,216Michael,54,60,64MiddleAges,188Milan,364miracles,147–48,165,174,199,238modalism,308–15,335,337Mohammed,131monotheism,24,49,51,53,83,235Jewish,51–55

Montefiore,Hugh,200MoodyBibleInstitute,85–86,132Mormonism,85,131,147Moroni,147mortalbody,raisingof,180–83Moses,51,56–57,60–61,83,98,120,124,126,131,162,239,250,258,261,277,331,361asGod,80–82

MountHermon,63MountHoreb,57MountSinai,57Muslims,38,147,199,284–85Mytilene,39,40

NagHammadi,179,303,305–6NagHammadiLibrary,303–4NarrativeofJosephofArimathea,150Nazareth,44,97,352near-deathexperiences,149Nephilim,62–63Nero,16,158,203Nestorius,368–70NewTestament,2,6,8,11,17,18,21,44,54,86,89–98,110,126,127,130,133,138,155,161,181,187–88,191,200,215,216,

239,248,251,262,273,281,286,293,295,301,356,383n1afterthe,283–321problemsandmethodsofhistoricalJesus,87–98SeealsoGospels;specificbooks

NiceneCreed,2,9,323–25,350–52,357,366,367Nicodemus,156Noah,60,62Novatian,335–37Trinity,336,337

objectivity,172–73Octavian.SeeAugustus,CaesarOldTestament,51–52,286,301,305,331,332,333,340.SeealsoHebrewBible;specificbooksOlympias,22–23oraltraditions,91–93,96,102,136,166,216,244–45,379n21OrigenofAlexandria,292,315–19,383n17OnFirstPrinciples,316,318

orthodoxy,8,285,286–89,315–16,319,323–52,360,365,368Ariancontroversy,344–52,356–57,365,366,367ofDionysiusofRome,337–39inearlychurch,286–321,323–52hetero-orthodoxies,307–19ofJustinMartyr,330–34ofNovatian,335–37paradoxes,326–52terminology,285,287–88,319

Ossius,348

Ovid,19–20Metamorphoses,19–20

paganism,3,4,5,12–18,43,49,51,53,54,55,62,63,64,83,94,214,240–41,285,345,346,358–60,363GodChristand,358–60RomanandGreekmodelsofhumandivinity,18–43

Palestine,45,49,69,88,91,105,223,341,354paradoxes,ortho-,326–52Pascal,283–84Pascal’sWager,283–85Passover,120–21,159,360–61seder,120

Paul, 11, 17, 21–22, 89, 108, 111, 127, 154, 188, 213–15, 236, 239, 246, 251–69, 280, 281, 295–96, 300, 310, 376n4, 378n2,379n21

beliefsof,213–18exaltationChristology,218–30incarnationChristology,251–69,270,280resurrectionnarrative,133,136–43,153,154,165,166,176–78,181–83visionsofJesus,188,192,202,203,214

Paulineletters.SeespecifictextsPentecost,135,227Pentecostalism,148Peppard,Michael,28,232TheSonofGodintheRomanWorld,232–33

Peregrinus,34–38Persia,65pessimism,100Peter,17,90,94,127,140,154,179–80,188,190,219,227,228,238,306visionsofJesus,188,190,192,203

Peter,Gospelof,94,95Petronius,Satyricon,158Pharisees,99,110,205Philemon,19–20,21,22Philip,124Philip,KingofMacedonia,22–23,160Philippians,215,253–66,296Adamand,259–62ChristPoem,254–66,381n8incarnationChristology,253,254–66,267,278,281aspre-Paulinetradition,255–58

PhiloofAlexandria,73–75,81–82,158–69,163,276Agriculture,75ChangingofNames,75Dreams,75EmbassytoGaius,163LifeofMoses,81–82onLogos,73–75QuestionsonExodus,82QuestionsonGenesis,75SacrificesofAbelandCain,81,82TheWorseAttacks,theBetter,81

Philostratus,12,13,373n3LifeofApolloniusofTyana,14,15

Phrygia,19–20,21Pilate,Pontius,6,15,45,96,119,122–23,152,154,156,161–64,246,325policiesof,161–64

Plato,24,73,74,75,373n6,383n16

onLogos,73,74,273Plautus,Amphytrion,23–24PlinytheYounger,233Plutarch,22–23polytheism,39,41,83,338Posey,T.B.,193powers,54,83PrayerofJoseph,48preliterarytraditions,216–18,226,229–30,236,240,273–74pre-Paulinetradition,138–40,218,221,255–59Philippianspoemas,255–59

Presbyterianism,130,285presuppositions,144–50Priene,47–49PrincetonEpigraphyProject,47–49PrincetonTheologicalSeminary,86PrincetonUniversity,47principalities,54,83ProculusJulius,26PrologueofJohn,272,273–79,297Proteus,14,18,38pyramid,divine,40–42,54Pythagoras,13

Q,95,96,103,109,110,125,249,270onJesus’sapocalypticmessage,104

Quintilian,31InstitutesofOratory,31

Quirinus,27

Ram’el,63rape,62Raphael,54reason,172,333resurrection,6–7,91,116–18,129–69,171–210,214,218,240,244,246,289,378n2,378n8apologists,172–73,199beliefofdisciplesand,174–83,204–10debate,129–69“doubttradition”and,189–92emptytomb,164–69,184–86,190,206exaltationofJesus,218–36,237,239,249–51,266Gospelnarratives,133–36,140,141,142,143,151–56,162,168–69,181–83,189–92historiansand,132–33,143–51outcomeoffaith,204–10Paulon,133,136–43,153,154,165,166,176–78,181–83raisingofmortalbody,180–83raisingofspirit,178–80ofspiritualbody,176–78visionsofJesus,183–204whatwecanknow,171–210whatwecannotknow,129–69womenatthetomb,166–68,184–85,191

Ricardo,MonsignorPioBello,198Roberts,Oral,148Rohmer,Eric,filmsby,283,284Roma,30,32RomanAdoptionists,291–95RomanCatholicism,39,144,147

Romans,166,215,218–25,260,267,268,295,310exaltationofJesus,218–25

Rome,ancient,5,9,11–43,49,78,82,92,94,112,116,119–23,126,144,153,219,245,291,293,298,358adoptionin,232–34burialpracticesforcriminals,156–65Christiansand,291–95,309–11,330,339–60,384n8commongravesusedforcriminals,160–61divinebeingsbornofagodandamortal,22–24divinepyramid,40–42emperorcult,30–34,49,234foundingof,27godswhotemporarilybecomehuman,19–22humanwhobecomesdivine,25–38Jesusand,119–23,143–65,219–25,232–34,245–46,264modelsofdivinehumans,18–43practicesofcrucifixion,156–60resurrectionand,143–69

Romulus,25–27,144,240Ruether,Rosemary,FaithandFratricide,363RutgersUniversity,47,247

Sabbath,98,157Sabellius,337–38,366Sabines,27Sacks,Oliver,Hallucinations,194Sadducees,120,121salvation,108–9,112,214,285,306–7Sanders,E.P.,88Sanhedrin,152,154,155,156,163,225Sarah,56Sardis,360satire,35Saul,76,114SayingsSource,95scavenginganimals,157–61,163schizophrenia,194science,145,172Sebastos,30Segal,Alan,68–69semidivinebeings,divinebeingswhobeget,62–64Semitism,223Semyaz,63separationistChristology,305–7,309seraphim,54,83sex,62,63,241SibyllineOracles,203Sidgewick,H.A.,193,194Similitudes,66–67Sirach,60–61,276slavery,120,361,363Smith,Daniel,143Smith,Joseph,147Smyrna,299snakes,29,259Socrates,42,333SodomandGomorrah,72Solomon,King,71–72,76,114SonofMan,inancientJudaism,64–68,83,101,106–9,113,118,119,209sourcemonitoring,194

Spain,218spirit,raisingof,178–80spiritualbody,raisingof,176–78staircaseparallelism,273–74Stark,Rodney,131Stoics,73–74,273Suetonius,160LivesoftheCaesars,27–30,160

SunGod,14supernatural,143–44,148,149,174,188,193,194Surafel,64SynopticGospels,94–95,102,103,249,252,270Syria,242,298,349systematictheology,316

Tacitus,160Annals,160–61

Tam’el,63technology,172TenCommandments,50,51,53,55Tertullian,300,303,307,310–15,329AgainstPraxeas,310–15modalismattackedby,310–15

Thebes,23TheodosiusI,346,363,364Theodotians,291–95Theodotus,291–95theologicalortho-paradox,328–52Thomas,doubting,16,182,190,327Thomas,Gospelof,94,95,105Thrace,29Thucydides,PeloponnesianWar,154Tien,A.Y.,194Titus,theemperor,31Tobin,Thomas,275,276Torah,51–52,53,80,113,121Trajan,233Tralles,299Trinity,309–11,313–15,329,334,335–39,353,356–57terminology,311

TrinityEvangelicalCovenantChurch,Chicago,86,87Turkey,47–49,214,349two-powersheresy,67–69Tyana,12,14

unity,paththatdenies,302–7UniversityofNorthCarolina,48,145,247Uriel,58

Venezuela,198Venus,27,32Vermes,Geza,88Vespasian,31VestalVirgins,25Victor,Bishop,293VirginMary.SeeMaryvisions,183–204bereavement,195–97broaderperspective,193–95

ofesteemedreligiousfigures,197–201importancetoresurrectionfaith,184–86ofJesus,183–204,379n20ofMary,198–99,202inthemodernworld,200–201nonveridical,187,193terminology,186–89veridical,187,193

Vollenweider,Samuel,263

Watchers,63–64,66Wiebe,PhillipH.,VisionsofJesus,200–201Wisdom,70–72,74,75,267–68,276,280,281,316,317,318,340WisdomofSolomon,71–72,267,275,276womenatthetomb,166–68,184–85,191Word,70,72–75,273,274–78,281,316,317,318,340–41JesusasLogosofGod,332–34

Wright,N.T.,188

Yahweh,78,265,381n12YaleUniversity,48

Zebedee,296Zeus,14,21,22–23,28,40,41,62,64,240–41

ABOUTTHEAUTHOR

PhotobyDanSears

BARTD.EHRMAN is one of the most renowned and controversial Bible scholars in the worldtoday.AmasterexplainerofChristianhistory,texts,andtraditions,hisworkcontinuestodrivedebateamong supporters and detractors alike. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor ofReligiousStudies at theUniversity ofNorthCarolina,ChapelHill, and is the author ofmore thantwenty books, including theNew York Times bestsellingMisquoting Jesus; God’s Problem; Jesus,Interrupted;andForged.EhrmanhasappearedonDatelineNBC,TheDailyShowwithJonStewart,CNN, theHistoryChannel,and topNPRprograms,andhehasbeenfeatured inTime, theNewYorkTimes,TheNewYorker,TheWashingtonPost,andmore.Visithimonlineatwww.bartdehrman.com.

Visitwww.AuthorTracker.comforexclusiveinformationonyourfavoriteHarperCollinsauthors.

ALSOBYBARTD.EHRMAN

DidJesusExist?TheHistoricalArgumentforJesusofNazareth

Forged:WritingintheNameofGod—WhytheBible’sAuthorsAreNotWhoWeThinkTheyAre

Jesus,Interrupted:RevealingtheHiddenContradictionsintheBible(AndWhyWeDon’tKnowAboutThem)

God’sProblem:HowtheBibleFailstoAnswerOurMostImportantQuestion—WhyWeSuffer

MisquotingJesus:TheStoryBehindWhoChangedtheBibleandWhy

TheOrthodoxCorruptionofScripture:TheEffectofEarlyChristologicalControversiesontheTextoftheNewTestament

TheNewTestament:AHistoricalIntroductiontotheEarlyChristianWritings

LostChristianities:TheBattlesforScriptureandtheFaithsWeNeverKnew

LostScriptures:BooksThatDidNotMakeItintotheNewTestament

Jesus:ApocalypticProphetoftheNewMillennium

CREDITS

Coverdesign:NancyCampanaDesignCoverandspineillustration:©JeffreyThompson,Veer

COPYRIGHT

Throughout thisbook Iquote theBiblewithsomefrequency.Thesequotationsareeithermyown translationsordrawnfromtheNewRevisedStandardVersion.

HOWJESUSBECAMEGOD:TheExaltation of a JewishPreacher fromGalilee.Copyright© 2014 byBartD.Ehrman.All rightsreserved under International and Pan-AmericanCopyright Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you have been granted thenonexclusive, nontransferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced,transmitted,downloaded,decompiled,reverse-engineered,orstoredinorintroducedintoanyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem,inanyformorbyanymeans,whetherelectronicormechanical,nowknownorhereinafterinvented,withouttheexpresswrittenpermissionofHarperCollinse-books.

HarperCollinswebsite:http://www.harpercollins.com

HarperCollins®, ®,andHarperOne™aretrademarksofHarperCollinsPublishers.

FIRSTEDITION

LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataEhrman,BartD.

HowJesusbecameGod:theexaltationofaJewishpreacherfromGalilee/BartD.Ehrman.pagescm

ISBN978–0–06–177818–6EPubEditionMarch2014ISBN97800622521971.JesusChrist.2.JesusChrist—Historicity.3.JesusChrist—Personandoffices.I.Title.BT304.9.E372014

232—dc23 2013027750

1415161718RRD(H)10987654321

ABOUTTHEPUBLISHER

AustraliaHarperCollinsPublishers(Australia)Pty.Ltd.

Level13,201ElizabethStreetSydney,NSW2000,Australiahttp://www.harpercollins.com.au

CanadaHarperCollinsCanada

2BloorStreetEast-20thFloorToronto,ON,M4W,1A8,Canada

http://www.harpercollins.ca

NewZealandHarperCollinsPublishers(NewZealand)Limited

P.O.Box1Auckland,NewZealand

http://www.harpercollins.co.nz

UnitedKingdomHarperCollinsPublishersLtd.77-85FulhamPalaceRoadLondon,W68JB,UK

http://www.harpercollins.co.uk

UnitedStatesHarperCollinsPublishersInc.

10East53rdStreetNewYork,NY10022

http://www.harpercollins.com