High Christianity and Low Christianity
I've been trying to understand Bart Ehrman's series of posts on his blog. While one has to contribute to his local homeless charity to receive his blog I recommend it as a way to absorb small pieces of how a literary criticism scholar reads the Bible. Currently, he is dissecting the fourth gospel, the Book of John.
There are two terms at play in trying to understand who Jesus was supposed to have been. One is called "Low Christianity", that Jesus was a rabbi and would be a leader of the Jews, and the other "High Christianity", Jesus as a god. Ehman has always said that to be complete and convincing, Christianity and the Bible need to provide a clear explanation as to who this main character was, a god or not, and, where he came from, a divine origin or not.
Apparently, there is little disagreement the Book of John is a cobbled together series of ancient written work done not only by different authors around the time it came into being, more than 100 years after the alleged time of Jesus, but also included writing from long before that time.
I've mentioned before the Jesus character portrayed by writers in the first three gospels is a person not putting his divineness on display or letting many others know about it. In the Book of John writers display a different Jesus, one bragging about his divine creds.
But even the divineness is not consistent in the Book of John. In John 1:35-42 is a story scholars believe was passed down from early Christians who had not separated from the Jewish faith. It is thought to have been told originally in Aramaic, the language that Jesus would have spoken.
In this story of Jesus, he is referred to as a "lamb of God", a rabbi and the messiah. None of these was a god, all were Low Christianity. Ehrman and others have long maintained the Jesus character was not considered a god with supernatural powers until quite a while after his alleged death.
In the Book of John the transformation can be traced through time. The social circumstances which pushed this transformation will be discussed in later blogs.
re; Jesus the man (low) and Jesus the divine (high); Not so hard to understand. While He was alive on earth the human nature was much of what could be seen, and to many, expected ruler on earth. After his death, His divine nature was revealed. First to a few, then to many.
ReplyDeleteOne can ask the question; 1. Was the transformation the result of social circumstances?, or 2. were the social circumstances the result of the transformation? Given time, the growth and spread of Christianity , the result should be clear. IMHO.
Actually, after thinking about it over night, the term "transformation" implies an inaccurate understanding. Something like "presto-chango".
DeleteA more accurate explanation would be ; "In time revealed".
Before His death, there were indications of his divinity, Even in the Genesis, 3;14 protoevangelium, but HIS TIME HAD NOT YET COME. As in the famous line from a movie; "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth." It was yet beyond their comprehension. Finally in the book of Acts, was it made clear.
helper "2. were the social circumstances the result of the transformation?"
DeleteThis would have been the conventional wisdom into the 1800's. That was back when much of Western history was written from a Christian perspective. Generally, the social sciences taught that cultural change is an unpredictable and powerful force independent of most "management." The culture brought Constantine, he and those who followed (with an exception or two). The culture was ripe for a new religion.
To say that Christianity dictated the favorable culture would be to say today Europe's prevailing religious views are being driven by Christianity. European Christianity is trying to survive but being driven to the sideline by something (many things I suppose) in the culture. Today in the U.S. "nones" are growing, Christianity is not. Is Christianity, its message of hell and heaven and forgiveness of sins, causing nones numbers to grow while Christianity is not? It seems obvious the Christian message is not aliened with the culture. The latter is going its own way as it always has done.
P.S. and as it did during the early years of Christianity.
DeleteJon; Your original contention was that of the past, and what is happening now is irrelevant to the past, unless you wish to phylosophically re-write history.
DeleteBy the way, re. timelines; The book of acts starts at Pentecost. 50 days after Passover. You remember Jesus was crucified immediately before Passover.
DeleteSo it's 50 days not 100 years. Read the book of Acts. Whether you accept it or not, I don't really care.
Helper "So it's 50 days not 100 years."
DeleteA reader of Ehrman's blog quoted John McArthur who made the same case you make. Ehrman replied, "The actual direction of scholarship today is to argue Acts is dependent to some extent on Josephus and was written about 120, making Luke around the too." He then goes on to explain why the timeline you use does not seem logical.
Whether you accept it or not, I don't really care.
I don't rely on McArthur. He is not in my circle of informed. That Josephus influenced Acts is not based on fact, and is speculative at best, and that "scholarship" is not reliable.
DeleteHelper "speculative at best..."
DeleteI've never seen anything written about the Bible by either the likes of Ehrman or by believef like yourself that is not speculative. Invisible beings, walking on water, dead people coming back to life and life after death are all speculative.
See; Hypostatic union.
ReplyDeleteAKA ; The Two Natures In Christ.
ReplyDeleteHelper "Hypostatic union, Two natures..."
ReplyDeleteThat is the very topic Ehrman is discussing. He says the conventional view in the faith is that the two, divine and human, were always what followers/fans of Jesus believed. By plotting methodically through original languages and time of writing he has concluded the Jesus character in the Bible was not considered divine , by most followers, until long after he disappeared. The Book of John writers tried to drive the divine home over 100 years later. But even those who compiled the Book included material from before the divine was popular. This was the theme of his book, "How Jesus Became God" and he is covering it again now in his blog.
Jon; Of course "this is the very topic" I too have Ehrman's book.
DeleteI don't accept the 100 yr timeline. The book of acts follows almost immediately after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Certainly many years before the destruction of Jerusalem @ 70 ad.
Jon; There are two ways to approach this. 1. How can this be. and 2. Why this can't be.
ReplyDeleteI choose # 1. You and Bert choose #2.
Helper--About a post of yours I did not put up here, an old tactic is used here on the board frequently. It is, "When losing an argument, attack the opponent personally." I allow those posts often but in this case we had a good discussion going and I'd prefer to stick with it.
ReplyDeleteattacking the faith is also personal.
Deletehelper -- "attacking the faith is also personal"
ReplyDeleteWhat? Pointing to scholars who say a part of the Bible was written in 120 instead of 41 is attacking your faith? I admit the entire field of critical Bible scholarship puts some believers on the defensive. I've said here many times before the faith should not have based itself on the Bible.
Not on the defensive. In fact, just the opposite. In fact I am critical of many parts of what you describe as "critical Bible scholarship". " Deduction" (which is a large part of it), produces a lot of What If's , and maybes. Not something a faith should be based on.
DeleteIn fact, there is a "deductive Bible" written and used by some far liberals in the fold. As expected, they "deduct" just about anything they wish. A cat has a tail, a dog has a tail, so a cat is a dog.
Delete"concluded" is deduction.
Deletere. "the faith should not have based itself on the Bible." Really? So you would prefer private revelation over everything else. You would go with Waco Texas, Jim Jones, the zwickow prophets of reformation fame, who prompted the peasants uprising, Hagee of Christian Zionism fame. John Nelson Darby of milinal ist fame, the farting preacher, Bennie Hinn, Oral Roberts. and the Magisterium. Nice bunch of followers you have in your back pocket. I am impressed.
Deletehelper "Nice bunch of followers you have in your back pocket"
ReplyDeleteAnd, in your back pocket are "revealed truths", "walking on water" and old bones walking out of graves. The characters you mentioned and those who wrote that stuff in the Bible are all in the same line of work, religion.
"Same line of work": If that's what you think, you are sadly mistaken, and are taken in by your own back pocket.
DeleteEhrman's "concluded" (your word) is equally a deduction. And on this you base your non-faith defense The cat and dog thingie works both ways.
helper "is equally deductive"
ReplyDeleteI'd prefer to get instruction on deductive reasoning versus inductive from someone with formal and up to date training in this field. To me, when you read the Bible you start with the assumption an invisible being, or many, exist and that somehow God produced the Bible and go from there to interpret what it means that's deductive. Most all Christian pundits practice that way.
So now your "formal" is more superior. How arrogant. Pietism of the first order.
Delete