Did Jesus Claim to be God? (and the trilemma)

Faith & Science Conversation
1

This came up in recent discussion so I wanted to weigh in on the issue. I am more concerned with the answer to the question in the thread title than defending the trilemma specifically but I think it still stands as a good apologetical starter piece. This will be lengthy (I tried to trim it and only got to 10 pages) so I am going to post the first half only. After a few days I’ll post the second half.

Jesus is either Liar, lunatic or Lord. Even though often attributed to C.S. Lewis, this argument has a storied history. Very few consider Jesus a liar or a lunatic and the main attack on the trilemma is that Jesus did not himself claim to be God. This is widely believed to be a later theological development of the Church or his followers. Thus we end up with lair, lunatic, Lord or legend. I will argue that Jesus himself claimed to be divine, and the trilemma still stands*.* Legend does not line up with the historical evidence. The trilemma does not have the certitude of a formal logical proof as it makes value judgments using terms that can be fluid and it rests on historical evidence and can only be as strong as one believes such evidence is capable of being. In addition, it is quite possible to think Jesus was crazy as opposed to Lord*.* The atheist Christopher Hitechens has articulated such a view. Most people generally do not see Jesus as a liar or a lunatic so I believe the trilemma is a good apologetical starter piece. Some facts to get us going:

  • · Critical scholarship almost universally rejects the idea that Jesus saw himself as God. It is a staple of modern Bible scholarship that Jesus’s initial followers did not see him as God during His public ministry and earthly life. Nor did Jesus teach he was God or the pre-existent and incarnate Son of God. “Jesus did not spend his ministry declaring himself to be divine . . . One of the enduring findings of modern scholarship on the New Testament and early Christianity over the past two centuries is that followers of Jesus, during his life, understood him to be human through and through, not God. [Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God.] Jewish (Geza Vermes), Christian (James Dunn) and Non-religious scholars (Ehrman) alike all agree on this along with one very prominent theologian (Gerald O’Collins). We could add many names to each category.
  • · The discourses in the Gospel of John are widely believed by scholars to be reframed material and not go back to the historical Jesus. As Sanders and Davies wrote, “In the synoptics there are short, pithy statements, aphorisms and parables which focus not on Jesus’ person but on the kingdom of God. The synoptics’ Jesus must ask his disciples who they think he is (Mark 8:27 and parr.), and it is clear that he has not identified himself explicitly. He refuses to give a sign to those who ask (Mark 8:11-13). When he is on trial, according to Matthew and Luke, he will not even give a straightforward answer about who he is when asked by the high priest. The Jesus of the Gospel of John, however, talks in long monologues, and the subject is usually himself: his relationship to God on the one hand and to the disciples on the other. He offers ‘signs’ in abundance (see, for example, John 2.11), and he says explicitly that ‘I and the Father are one’ (John 10.30).” E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels.
  • · It is the predominant view that traditional authorship the gospels cannot be confirmed and instead they are anonymous works by Christians written late in the first century—often after the apostolic period had waned and it was realized Jesus was not coming back nearly as soon as expected. Mark is usually dated 65-75 C.E. and Matthew, Luke and John typical towards the end of the first entury. Thus, critical historians do not read the gospels as if they are direct eyewitness reports (Matthew and John) or eyewitness reports via proxy (Mark using Peter’s preaching) or an early companion of Paul who carefully investigated eyewitness testimony.
  • · We might think: “but we still have four witnesses.” However, the wording and order of Matthew, Mark and Luke is too similar to most scholars to have arisen by chance or through oral remembrance. Thus, most scholars posit some form of direct literary dependence between the gospels. The most common view is that Mark wrote first, matthew and Luke copied Mark and John may or may not have copied one or more of them. There are alternative views but it should be noted we cannot view, triple-tradition material (that which occurs in say Matthew, Luke and Mark) as three witnesses for this. Rather, all three stories are traceable to Mark. This does not mean the author of Matthew could not have independently known a story or tradition, only simply that we cannot uncritically assume the author did when we are extremely confident the author was copying Mark. We will have to say non liquet most of the time to whether or not the authors knew of the story they chose to copy independently from their sources.
  • · It is often thought that Jesus is presented as divine in the gospel of John but not in the synoptic Gospels.

I am not advocating for any of the above bullet points. Some of them I do agree with or find the evidence to be quite convincing for. This is simply what many scholars who study the historical Jesus and Christian origins believe. It is my goal to try to work from within these constraints to show Jesus claimed to be divine through sober and mainstream historical methodology.

Some historical warrants to get us going:

    1. Believing that Jesus thought he was divine does not mean we need to think he programmatically taught this. Brant Pitre writes, “. . . the best explanation for why the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus believed he was divine shortly after his death is because Jesus himself spoke and acted as if he were divine during his lifetime. Indeed, when we interpret the words and deeds attributed to Jesus in a first-century Jewish context, a strong case can be made that the historical Jesus claimed to be divine, but he did so in a very Jewish way—using riddles, question, and allusions to Jewish Scripture to both reveal and conceal the apocalyptic secret of his divinity. As we will see, it is precisely the riddle-like and scripturally allusive nature of Jesus’s divine claims that gave birth to an early Christology that as simultaneously both very “high” (i.e., divine) and very “low) (i.e., human).” Jesus and Divine Christology
    1. All four first century gospels have several instances of Jesus being accused of blasphemy: Matthew 9:3, Matthew 26:65-66, Mark 2:7, Mark 14:63-64, Luke 5:2, John 10:33 and John 19:7. In every one of these instances, the charge of blasphemy is about who Jesus claims to be or is acting like. If a scholar wants to believe Jesus did not claim divine status during his earthly ministry, that individual has to convincingly argue that all the above examples are unhistorical.
    1. Jesus angered people and was crucified. If we are going to offer a cogent historical reconstruction of Jesus, we should be able to explain or at least make sense of the most secure piece of historical data we have about him: his death by crucifixion. Blasphemy in the form of an exalted sense of self-identity cannot be arbitrarily removed from the table without serious justification.
    1. We cannot argue that it makes no sense in a first century Jewish context for a person to think they were God. This is the view of some of the earliest and original followers of Jesus. In fact, Paul, who identifies himself as a Pharisee, clearly calls Jesus the Creator several times. If Paul, a Pharisee and Jesus’s original followers could believe this, there is no reason to presume Jesus could not.
    1. Because an event in the life of Jesus as recorded in the gospels appears to mimic a story in the Old Testament, we cannot dismiss it on these grounds, no matter how striking the parallels. As sober a scholar as Dale Allison makes this mistake with regard to the transfiguration in the gospels. Because the account so closely mirrors events in Israel’s history, he and W. D. Davies ask, “How can a factual episode exhibit so many similarities to an event in the life of Moses?” This of course is not a very feasible objection. Brant Pitre raises the following counterpoint: “For one thing, in a first-century Jewish context, it is quite credible that an apocalyptic prophet like Jesus would recapitulate the actions of Moses by taking his disciples to a special place in order to experience a miraculous theophany. That is, after all, precisely what was done by two other first-century prophets: Theudas (active in the mid-40s CE) and “the Egyptian” (active in the mid-50s CE).” Josephus describes Theudas as gathering people and their possessions and bringing them to the Jordan river. He suggested that by his command the rivers would part similarly to how Moses parted the seas when the Israelites left Egypt. The Egyptian brought people to the Mount of Olives under the pretense that by his command they would see the walls of Jerusalem fall. If we have evidence of two figures, from the same time period as Jesus, reenacting Biblical history, why on earth would automatically think instances where Jesus does it in the gospels are made up? It is quite dubious to think this way especially when we have solid historical evidence “Jewish prophets deliberately modeled their actions on well-known figures from Jewish Scripture.” –Pitre . Not to mention that Jesus could certainly have viewed himself as ushering in the new covenant spoken about by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:31-34) or the new Moses (Deut 18:18) whom God declared “I will put my words in his mouth.”

We can now turn to a few arguments and a justification of historical warrant number four up above.

The earliest Church had an extremely high Christology.

This was not a late development towards the end of the first century or after decades of prayer and reflection on the person of Jesus. An extremely high, divine Christology is a part of the earliest Church and material we have on record. Outside of some very early dates affixed to Mark by two atheist scholars (Maurice Casey and James Crossley), the Pauline corpus is widely regarded as the earliest surviving material we have and in it, the highest of Christology clearly emerges.

“The idea that Jesus is God . . . was the view of the earliest Christians soon after Jesus’ death.” Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God.

“The earliest Christology was already the highest Christology.” Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel.

“A Christology that portrays Christ as divine emerges very early, in distinctively Jewish terminology and within a Jewish context.” Andrew Chester, High Christology – Whence, When and Why?

The idea that Jesus was purely human and known to be purely human and that over the course of the first and second centuries he developed into a divine being is flatly contradicted by the evidence. All four Gospels—as will be shown, and our earliest writings in the Pauline corpus all attest to an extremely high Christology just after the death of Jesus. Scholars of all shades and stripes agree rthat the earliest Church had a high eschatology.

Paul viewed Jesus as the life-giving rock that provided water to the Israelites in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:4) and unlike Adam, Jesus was pre-existent and came from heaven (1 Cor 15:47). He is the image of God (2 Cor 4:4) and the “messiah who is God over all” (Romans 9:5). Astonishingly, Paul identified himself as Pharisee with zeal for the law, and in his writings, the earliest documents we possess, Jesus is deemed the creator and sustainer of all things (Rom 8:6): “ yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” We are hard pressed to claim this is inconsistent with the Judaism of the time considering Paul was a Jew of the time along with some of the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus who also held to a high Christology! Jesus as creator is also echoed in 1 Colossians 1:15-20.. In Galatians 4:4 we are told that God sent his Son, born of woman which is an odd description in one sense. Born of woman? How else are men born? But since Paul believed Jesus was pre-existent, he is making it known that Jesus was really born as a flesh and blood individual. And of course there is the poem in Philippians 2:6-10 where Christ is a divine being preceding the creation of the world and his exaltation is equal with God. How much higher can a Christology get? And again, this is in the earliest Christian material we have from an individual who met with and knew original followers of Jesus. This is not from a late gospel after more than a half century of theological reflection. We could also add other non-gospel literature such as Hebrews 1:3-5, which was not written by Paul, but calls Jesus an exact image of the father and the creator and sustainer of all things. When we read the first chapter of the gospel of John which starts off by imitating the beginning of Genesis and declares Jesus to be the preexistent Word of God and creator of all things, this is not a later theological development. As far as we can tell, this was the belief of the earliest Christians we have on record and is datable to a time no later than a few years after Jesus’s death. This is the latest possible date (terminus ante quem) and if my view is correct, a natural extension of Jesus’s own self-revelation.

Jesus left no writings of his own:

Scholars come up with a variety of different methods (e.g. using the earliest multiply attested data), some employ historical criteria (e.g., multiple attestation, embarrassment, coherence, etc.) while others reject these criteria while offering other criteria in their place (e.g. recurrent attestation). Scholars also debate the dating, authorship, provenance, literary relationship and historical value of the four canonical gospels. Source evaluation needs to precede reconstruction, and this onion is not easy to peel. There is a lot moving parts and judgments to be made before historians can attempt a reconstruction of Jesus. But it always comes down to source and method. Scholars have strong disagreements, and the historical Jesus movement is commonly described as going through three distinct phases or quests with some saying we are now moving into a fourth one. Here are my thoughts. Continuity between Jesus and his original followers should be sought after as a general principle. How else do we reconstruct the historical Jesus, who left behind no writings of his own or archaeological evidence, except but through the beliefs and remembrances of his first followers and eyewitnesses who were there? Trying to determine what the original eyewitnesses to his ministry believed shortly after his death would seem to be the goal of any historical reconstruction of Jesus. If we cannot know this, then I would argue we cannot know anything about Jesus and the entire discipline of Jesus research is simply informed art and not the academic discipline it is often promoted as. After discussing problems with the traditional criteria-based approach, James Crossley had this to say:

“So what can we say in (what is hopefully) a post-criteria world? To some degree, we are simply left with an old fashioned view of historical interpretation: interpretation of the material (and, as Rafael Rodriguez has stressed, we are doing nothing but relentlessly interpreting even when using the criteria), guesswork about contexts and the combining of arguments to make an argument of collective weight. But an argument for what? Certainly not proof of what Jesus said or did. Jesus may or may not have said word-for-word what some of the Gospel passages claim but we have no idea if this is in fact the case. All we can do is make a general case for the kinds of themes present in the early Palestinian tradition.”

I have to ask, if this level of skepticism is actually warranted by our sources, how on earth can scholars be so confident Jesus did not claim to be divine? While an apocalyptic and eschatological Jesus is the most common version today, it seems there is still a lot of diversity in historical Jesus scholarship. John Dominic Crossan once famously called the field “a scholarly bad joke” and an “academic embarrassment” given the diversity of reconstructions. I believe things have progressed positively since that writing, but one wonders what methodology scholars could possibly employ that allows them to be so certain that an extremely wide-held belief by Jesus’s earliest followers and the earliest Church did not actually start with Jesus himself? Given all the uncertainty in the field, one wonders how such precision is attained and if the certitude in which it is sometimes taught corresponds to the tentative reality of the situation? Now obviously just because people in the earliest Church believed something, this does not indicate it is true. Nonetheless, we have to seriously ask, on purely historical grounds, does our surviving source material allow us to parse between something the historical Jesus said and did and what the very earliest members of the Church and some of his original followers believed? If the answer is no then scholars should be consistent and not be so adamant that Jesus could not or did not claim to be divine. For many scholars who think the four canonical gospels are all post-70CE documents written by anonymous Christians a generation removed from the original followers of Jesus that are literarily dependent on one another and really only represent one or a few distinct sources, how does one parse between the beliefs of Jesus’s followers in the year 35 C.E. or 40 C.E. with say what he actually happened in 30 C.E.? Color me skeptical. I don’t think they can. These scholars have all sawn off the branch they are sitting in and this overwhelming consensus that Jesus did not claim to be divine is nothing more than artistic imagination. I cannot untangle the epistemological crisis historical Jesus research is currently undergoing but readers should know there is one and if they do not figure things out, all future books on Jesus should have the subtitle: “Me Making thinks up and guessing what Jesus was like.” Two multi-scholar works are informative for views from different angles on this subject: (1) Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity and (2) Jesus, Skepticism, and the Problem of History.

A Crater Without a Meteorite?

I think we need to explain, on historical grounds, why belief that Jesus was God was held to by the early Church. Many might attribute this to belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus but that does not indicate or necessitate a full-fledged divine Christology from Jewish monotheists that elevate a crucified carpenter from Nazareth into the creator and sustainer of all the world right after his death. Many Jews already believed in the general resurrection of the dead. Jesus could simply be the first fruits. He does not need to suddenly be elevated into Creator if He had performed no miracles or taught such things. What is the “plausible point of origin for the otherwise inexplicable early Christian belief that Jesus of Nazareth was not just the Messiah but also the one through whom the world was made”? Pitre —Jesus and Divine Christology

In the Next Installment I will argue that the synoptic gospels (and not just John) clearly present Jesus as divine and then also argue that we have good historical reasons to believe Jesus did as well given defenses of certain, to be honest, non-controversial scenes in them where Jesus is clearly claiming to be God. And I will end with the trilemma where honestly, a man that claims to be God and says what Jesus did is either crazy or God in the flesh.

3 Likes
2

Adjectively. Everything, all, but. No question. It is an inescapable inference.

3

Clear? I don’t think so.

I think the most we can say is that taking everything in the text as seriously as we (Christians) think it should be taken requires us to come to this conclusion.

Nor do I agree with the trilemma argument. In fact I think we can even say it is demonstrably false. There is rather simply a third option. That what the person means when he says he is God is different. I have know many who make this claim who are quite sane. But… when we look more closely, it becomes clear that what they mean is different. And thus the point of the Christian teaching of the Trinity is to reject their meaning as applying to Jesus – NO we do not mean Jesus is God in THAT way!

2 Likes
4

I will hold off on a response because I think what Jesus means by his claim to divinity comes from understanding his teachings and these scenes in light of their 1st century Jewish context (and that is part two). He claims to be God—in a Jewish context— as understood by first century Jews. That is what I will post next. I also think given the fullness of what Jesus said and expected of his followers, the trilemma stands. That is also next. I honestly rejected a lot of this stuff before reading Brant Pitre’s Jesus and Divine Christology in favor of the standard mantra which seems woefully inadequate in hindsight.

Any constructive criticisms of it will be appreciated but if I posted it all together I feel it would have gotten lost in such a large opening post.

2 Likes
5

Aye, the trilemma is a closed fallacy. The novel, with all good will, starts with Mary and her kin. She did all the messianic mystic groundwork. And she wasn’t mad or bad in the slightest. Her provincial artisan peasant genius son wasn’t either. He ran with, under, the spell she wove.

6

I have been reading the Gospel according to John during the week. What is written there as words of Jesus are really strong claims and John adds to that points that speaks more about the topic, like the start. If the words really were what Jesus said, there is little doubt that he practically told that he is one with the Father. It was just told in the cultural way in that context, possibly in a way that would not lead to execution before his task was done.

Some claim that the Gospel of John could not be written by John the Apostle. I think those opinions do not have strong ground, at least not stronger than the claims that it was written by old John. Anyhow, even if it would be written by someone else, it tells what the writer (and contemporary Christians that accepted the gospel) were thinking. In that, it represents early understanding among Christians.

As the gospel is claimed to be written by old John who knew what had been written before him (Mark, Matthew, Luke), the gospel did not necessarily represent the understanding just after Pentecost. John had pondered the matters for several decades before writing, so the text represents more mature thinking. As John knew what had been written earlier (three synoptics), there was no point in repeating the same for the fourth time. It is rational to think that he wrote from a different perspective in order to complement rather than repeat what was already said. Also, the synoptics had described what Jesus did, so what was needed was a description from a more theological viewpoint, what Jesus had revealed about himself.

From this starting point, I put much emphasis on what the Gospel according to John tells about who Jesus claimed to be.
My understanding is that those claims agree with what the other scriptures of the NT tell.

7

I think the difficulty is if John is written during the 90s it tells us what late first century Christian believe. Historical Jesus reconstruction wants to know about 30 CE, not 90 CE which is two generations later and plenty of time for creative embellishment. Not only that but a lot of scholars would go so far as to say the legend-making process can start during a person’s life.

I think part two will argue convincingly that this is the case. John may have reframed stuff but he captures the substance of what the Synoptics clearly articulate in a 1st century Jewish context. He just makes it overly explicit to some who might miss it. If John was written by John then all the better for me but that issue doesn’t really matter for my present purposes.

Vinnie

1 Like
8

It is true that the understanding may develop during the life of an individual. Young John and the old John perhaps 60-70 years later were not fully the same persons. At least, the understanding had developed during those decades. Yet, John the Apostle was an eyewitness and belonged to those few followers who had lived close to Jesus. That gives more weight to his testimony, even if he would interpret the words of Jesus in a more mature way.

In those times, the way people memorized important messages was different than it is now. We may be mislead if we compare those times to what we can observe around us today. There is also the possibility that the Holy Spirit was involved and helped to remember what Jesus said -I believe it but I understand that all scholars do not take that into account.

9

When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Child, your sins are forgiven.” **6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there questioning in their hearts, 7 “Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” **8 **At once Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves, and he said to them, “Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? **9 **Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and take your mat and walk’? **10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— 11 “I say to you, stand up, take your mat, and go to your home. –Mark 2

Jesus clearly states that he had been given “authority” to forgive sins on earth. He doesn’t say, “I forgive you of your sins”, he merely pronounces God’s forgiveness of the man’s sins. Why would God say that (someone) had given him authority to do anything?

Catholic priests and Lutheran pastors pronounce the forgiveness of sins every Sunday. Are they claiming to be God? No. If Jesus believed that he was the Messiah, he may have believed that God had given him special powers; powers which no other human had been granted before: the power to pronounce God’s forgiveness of sins. If this is in fact what Jesus meant, there is no other evidence in the Synoptics in which Jesus even infers that he is Yahweh (God).

10

Of course, as Christians who believe in inspiration and the importance of the Bible, we can certainly believe this. But that is generally not going to fly well in most academic circles: “treat this text as special because god inspired it and kept it free from major errors.” I think how we understand and interpret the Gospels and how a historian would are going to be very different. Even the question of miracles is dividing. If we use a probability based historical net that runs on methodological naturalism, none of the miracles in the Gospels can be reconstructed or be considered to have happened on historical grounds. If a method excludes them by default, but they did in fact happen, then such methodology simply can’t get history right here. Historical reconstruction is often not “what happened in the past” but an argument of “what I think is probable or likely in the past based on my limited understanding of incomplete evidence.” I believe you yourself said in another thread that historical evidence is softer and less objective than say scientific evidence. If that is true, even if there was good historical for something, it could be rejected if that something seemed to run counter to the laws of nature as we understand them. For many people, ancient testimony just isn’t strong enough to substantiate miracles… whether they happened or not. For example, suppose we had 4 different sources that all claimed to have observed Jesus walking on water. I could easily maintain that I trust the laws of buoyancy far more than even four independent witnesses combined. I would never say that there is not good historical evidence that person walked on water in this case though. Four-fold, independent eyewitness testimony is quite solid as far as historical evidence goes. I think the resurrection of Jesus has a lot going for it historically speaking–so much so that if it were a mundane and non-miraculous claim, I do not think any scholars would seriously doubt it. That is why virtually all scholars think it is a bedrock fact of history that many of Jesus’s follower believed he rose from the dead." But it is always the miraculous nature of something that really engenders the majority of the doubt. Miracles are basically saying “God acted here” and that may have occurred in history or be described as occurring in history but it is a theological statement. The real question is: are miracles extraordinary claims and do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? If so, miracles are going to be methodology excluded by historians. This is not the same thing has historical arguments showing these miracles did not happen. The two are very far apart.

Certainly, I would consider the traditions much stronger historically if I knew the author was an eyewitness follower of Jesus vs some unknown, anonymous Christians two generations later. Source evaluation is extremely important here and if scholars disagree on that, they are going to naturally disagree on a lot more. I think questions of authorship and dating are difficult to reach certitude on. Usually the dividing line is “scholars who trust tradition” vs “scholars that don’t.” I don’t have a particular issue with John writing or not writing the gospel. It would certainly make things easier if we could show traditional authorship was correct for the gospels, however.

Vinnie

1 Like
11

I don’t know what that means. I don’t like to quote AI for content but here it seems appropriate. ChatGPT: “Everything, all, but.” is not a complete sentence because it lacks a verb and a clear subject-predicate structure. It is a collection of words and a phrase that, on its own, does not form a complete thought. It is grammatically incorrect and would need to be incorporated into a larger sentence to make sense." Thank you AI. If you want to have a dialogue, maybe try adding a few more words to your responses that makes deciphering them less like a trip to the dentist to get teeth pulled and more like having a conversation. Is that how you would talk to someone at the pub or grocery store?

I am not sure what you are saying here either. Is your argument that Jesus would not have to be deemed crazy for thinking he was God–even if incorrect-- because his mother told him so? I don’t agree. I mean, my mommy only tells me I’m special and though I appreciate her, much doubt is found.

Are you assuming the Lucan (and or Matthean) infancy narrative is historical? Regardless, the Catholic in me says its always a good idea to listen the perpetually virgin Mother of God who was assumed into heaven. Jesus learned that in Cana. Listen to your mother.

Vinnie

12

There you go.

13

No more trips to the dentist for me. Have it your way and join our new militant friend.

14

Militant? Not me. Like my political economy, which many would regard as radical, extreme left wing, I regard as middle of the road. Equality of outcome, social justice, in public luxury and private sufficiency through land tax. Anything else either way is extreme.

15

Your answer to this is a perspective I’ve never thought of but greatly appreciate. I like how it still provides a historical naturalistic understanding to Jesus’ “reenactments” that doesnt necessarily have to serve any ulterior motive. To me when you propose that Jesus could be reenacting moments from Israel’s history, the question I think that historical reconstructions can’t answer are what part of those events later theological interpolation and what parts are Jesus’ reenactment? My thought though is that it’s clear that the earliest followers didn’t need that convincing if those reenactment moments in the Gospel were interpolation. If anything, the hypothetical interpolation were for the Gospel audiences.If the evidence was clear for the earliest followers, it does make you wonder how much they were convicted to “alter” stories to make them more theologically clear.

1 Like
16

“But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” - Jesus, Mark 2

Why would Jesus say that? Why would Jesus say that he had been given authority to forgive sins on earth if he was God (Yahweh)? Why would God need someone to give him permission to forgive sins?

17

I would never deny some details could be polished or added on account of the OT or intertestamental literature, but denying Jesus did something because it has a lot of similarities to an event from Israel’s past is just poor methodology. Learning about the two other apocalyptic prophets around the time of Jesus who did such things in the first century as reported by Josephus was an eye opener for me. I am thankful for Pitre’s book. We can’t simply assume things are not historical because they match up with something that happened in the OT. Sure, maybe the author of the transfiguration made it only three apostles with a pair of brothers to line up more tightly with Moses and company in the OT, but if a gospel writer can think and do this, so can Jesus. He could have chosen 3 and two brothers for just the same reasons. That sword cuts both ways and this was a monumental revelation to me.

On a purely historical level, I would still doubt a lot of the details of the Matthew infancy narrative that match up with Israel’s past. But as a Christian I have little problem with Jesus’s incarnation and birth happening in such a way as to recall Israel’s past. It doesn’t explain the odd behavior of the star or differences from Luke, but I can see why it would be done that way which changes things. Since I am a Christian and I think God appeared in the flesh on earth 2,000 years ago as a Jew in the midst of Israelite tradition and history, I do not think the historical net which usually embraces methodological naturalism and follows probability based arguments, can really get things right here.

But Jesus, who can call the twelve apostles (for 12 tribes) can also reenact Moses on Sinai and he can even consider himself the passover lamb and so forth on historical grounds before his death. We do not have to axiomatically assume these things are made up as some skeptics do or post-Easter creations of the Church. I mean, this is just what some Jewish prophets did at the time. Reenacted Israel’s history and brought the past into the present.

Vinnie

1 Like
18

We can dismiss it as an entirely natural acting out.

19

Part two of three:

This part has the goal of simply showing that the substance of the discourses in John where Jesus declares himself divine matches what we find in the synoptic gospels.

The Synoptic Gospels Clearly Present Jesus as Divine

Jesus is presented as making divine claims in all four gospels, including Mark which many consider having the lowest Christology. It goes without saying that in the gospel of John Jesus is presented as divine and on par with God (“I and the father are one,” “In the beginning was the word.” etc.). Some examples from Mark include Jesus walking on water (6:48), the transfiguration (9:2), Jesus quoting a psalm about the Messiah sitting at the right hand of the Father implying co-regency or near equality (12:35-36). Jesus reiterates similar thoughts in 14:62 where the high priest tears at his clothes at such unmistakable blasphemy. When understood in their original first-century Jewish context, these scenes and several others involve claims to divinity. We are going to look at the Jewish background of three scenes below that, in my mind, with increasing clarity, reveal that Jesus and the Father are one.

Jesus stills the storm

All three synoptic Gospels recall fearful disciples waking Jesus during a storm on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus is presented as at least partially human in the account considering he is presumably tired and is sleeping on the boat. What happens next is difficult for many people to accept. Jesus rebukes the wind and waves, and their cessation leaves the disciples in awe, wondering, “What sort of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?” (Mark 4:35-31, Matt 8:23-27, Luke 8:22-25). Jesus also seems to do more than control the weather in this account as it reads very much like an exorcism. Numerous early sources consider the wind and waves as being controlled by angels (1 Enoch 69:21-22, Jubilees 2:2, 2 Enoch19:1,4) and deep water especially, along with deserts, were considered the dwelling place of demons. Jesus shouting at the wind and rebuking it (“Peace! Be still!”) as if it understood him is quite plausible in first a century Jewish milieu for an exorcist who claimed power over spiritual forces. The region is also prone to sudden windstorm and strong waves, even to this day, so the setting of Jesus and his disciples, several of whom were Galilean fishermen, getting caught in one on the sea of Galilee, is entirely plausible. Understood in its Jewish context, this miracle is also epiphanic and highlights Jesus’s divine nature in some subtle ways.

Jesus doesn’t pray or ask God for help but relies on his own authority. If we read it in context of its scriptural background, Jesus is seen doing what the OT only attributes to God alone in the context of being the Creator (Job 26:11-12, Psalm 104, Psalm 107). For example, Job 26:11-12 reads: “The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astounded at his rebuke. 12 By his power he stilled the Sea.” Further, in Psalm 104 it is said that God can make the winds his messengers and as far as the waters go, at his rebuke they flee. Finally, in Psalm 107, God is seen saving sailors from calamity. The Gospel accounts of Jesus stilling the storm, down to the disciple’s fear and waking him for help are strikingly similar to what we find here: “. . . their courage melted away in their calamity; 27 they reeled and staggered like drunkards, and were at their wits’ end. 28 Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he brought them out from their distress; 29 he made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed.” The disciples response is fear and awe, a common response to epiphanies in the OT [Adam (Gen 3:10), Abraham (Gen 15:1), Jacob (Gen 28:17), Moses (Exod 3:6, 20:18-20) Isaiah (Isa 6:5) and Daniel (Dan 10:11-12).] Scenes like this, if historical, provide a much-needed and plausible point of origin for the view that Jesus was viewed as Creator very early by monotheistic Jews and the disciples are certainly correct to wonder: “who is this that even the wind and seas obey him?” We now turn to a scene with an even stronger claim to divinity.

Jesus Walks on Water:

In Matthew (14:22), Mark (6:45-51), and John (6:16-21), Jesus is depicted as walking across the sea and approaching the disciples whom the wind was against. Suggestions that Jesus was near the shore, or on the shore and obscured by mist, or that he was walking on logs, or submerged rocks or any other ludicrous rationalizations that have been proposed, do exegetical violence to the Gospel accounts. The sea of Galilee is about 13 miles long and 7.5 miles wide. Mark suggests they were in the “middle of the sea” (6:47), Matthew that they were “many stadia from the land” (14:24) and John is careful to note this occurs after they rowed four miles (6:19). This is narrated as nothing less than a supernatural miracle and in all three accounts the disciples are terrified and Jesus consoles them, “It is I; do not be afraid.”

This journey is not a flex on Jesus’s part but an epiphanic miracle teaching his divine nature. An epiphany is the manifestation or appearance of a divine being. (1) In this scene Jesus is presented as doing only what the God of the Old Testament can do. In Job 9:8 God alone stretches out the heavens and walks on the sea. The vocabulary used in the Gospel accounts is similar to that of Job 9:8 found in the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures known as the Septuagint. (2) The disciples are terrified as is typical of humans experiencing an epiphany or theophany (Gen 3:10, 15:1, 28:17, Exod 3:6, 20:18-20, Isa 6:5. Dan 10:11-12). (3) Jesus identifies himself as “It is I” and while this is undoubtedly meant as a self-identification, it also carries the connotation of the Greek “I am” and is reminiscent of how God identified Himself to Moses on Sinai (Exod 3:14-15). The combination of “do not fear” and “It is I” shows up together in two of the most exalted monotheistic descriptions of God in the Jewish Bible (Isa 43:1, 10 and Isa 43:25, 44:2). As one scholar notes:

“While the surface meaning of egō eimi in the Gospel narrative is “It is I,” the many OT allusions in the story (especially to the Creator God’s domination of the waters of chaos in a context of theophany) intimate a secondary, solemn meaning: the divine “I am.” Ultimately this solemn utterance goes all the way back to Yahweh’s revelation of himself to Moses in the burning bush. (Exod 3:14-15).” John Meier, A Marginal Jew Vol 2.”

Many scholars agree including very liberal ones like you find in the Jesus seminar. They do not agree the scene is historical but they agree Jesus is portrayed as saying “I am” while treading on the sea and that is the point here.

The Transfiguration
Jesus breaks off from the main group and takes Peter, James and John with him up a mountain where He is transfigured in the presence of Elijah and Moses (Matt 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-9, Luke 9:28-36). Peter suggests building three tabernacles, one for each individual and then a cloud envelopes the disciples and names Jesus as God’s Son. This entire scene is stepped in Jewish Eschatological references that Jesus’s followers should have been well acquainted with. The Book of Sirach and Malachi are of immense importance here. In Sirach we see that Elijah was expected at the end times due to prophecies of Malachi which Mark knows of as he quotes one when he introduces John the Baptist (Mark 1:2, Mal 3:1). If we read Mark’s account and compare it to how Elijah and Moses are often presented in the tradition, we see that Jesus is being given primacy over both. Sigurd Grindheim wrote:

“A Demoted Elijah. The most striking contrast between Mark and Sirach is that Mark does not show Elijah any particular respect at all. He is mentioned, and he appears together with Moses when Jesus is transfigured, but neither he nor Moses receives any particular attention or praise. They are just there. Instead, all the focus turns to Jesus. Mark’s account of the transfiguration concludes on the significant note that “they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus” (9:8). .

In light of the high view of Elijah that is attested in Sirach, the silence in Mark is deafening. Both he and Moses are reduced to silent extras in the scene of Jesus’s transfiguration. According to Sirach, no one compares to Elijah (Sir 48:4), and Moses was also viewed as an extremely exalted character in Jewish tradition. God told Moses, “I have made you like God to Pharaoh” (Exod 7:1), and Philo has an extensive discussion about what it means that Moses could be called “God” (Mut. 128; cf. 4Q374 2.2.6). (The glory of Moses is also a theme in Sir 44:23–45:5.) No one knew where Moses was buried (Deut 34:6), and a Jewish tradition holds that he was lifted up to heaven, like Elijah (Assumption of Moses). But in Mark, neither Elijah nor Moses is anything compared to Jesus. The implication is, at the very least, that Jesus is the ultimate spokesperson for God, God’s final messenger who brings God’s revelation to its climax. – Reading Mark in Context: Ch. 13 Sirach and Mark 8:27–9:13: Elijah and the Eschaton

Jesus is more than Elijah or Moses but we can go further. Choosing three disciples is reminiscent of Moses taking Aaron, Nadab and Abihu up mount Sinai with him (Exod 24:1, 9-11) where they “beheld God.” Nadab and Abihu were even brothers just as James and John were. Here the three chief disciples also experience a theophany. The disciples see Jesus transfigured and wearing luminously white clothing, the attire of heavenly beings. God himself is described as such in Psalm 104:2, Daniel 7:9 and 1 Enoch 14:18, 20-21. Daniel’s vision is of the “Ancient of Days” (God) whose clothing was as white as snow and His hair as white as wool. Jesus is thus being clearly described as God was.

Brant Pitre sums up the situation: “the synoptic accounts of the transfiguration suggest that Jesus is not merely a human being; he is also a heavenly being—one who temporarily lifts the visible appearance of his humanity to give his disciples a glimpse of his invisible heavenly glory.” This may happen to other individuals but it is after they die (Dan 12:6-7) or are exalted in heaven (Testament of Abraham 11:4-9). Jesus is transformed while still alive. He is already a heavenly being in human form. Moses and Elijah showing up here on the mountain are often said to symbolize the law and the prophets but it’s more than this. The Old Testament suggests Moses was buried by God (Deut 34:5-6), but later 2nd Temple Jewish traditions do stand at odds with this description and suggest he was assumed directly into heaven (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 4.325-326, 9.28) just as Elijah was (2 Kings 2:9-12). Both also had theophanies with God on Mount Sinai, both were able to speak with God but neither one actually saw the face of God (Exod 33:18-23, 1 Kgs 19:9, 11-14). This sets the stage for the transfiguration of Jesus.

Pitre writes: “Moses and Elijah are finally allowed to see the unveiled face of God. In the transfiguration, Jesus is not only being revealed as a heavenly being who has come to earth. He is also implicitly identified as the same heavenly being whose face Moses and Elijah were once unable to see but upon whom they can now gaze. How is this possible? Because the heavenly being who once appeared to them on Mount Sinai has now become a human being. In Jesus, the God of Mount Sinai now has a human face.”

After Moses encounters God on Sinia, the Israelites build Him a tabernacle to dwell in (Exod 25:1-2,8-9). This explains Peter’s otherwise odd question, asking if he should build three tabernacles, one for each heavenly being. Peter does not yet understand the full significance of the situation and apparently puts all three heavenly individuals on equal footing. But now the glory cloud of the Lord descends down on the three disciples and identifies Jesus (not Moses or Elijah) as His Son and tells them to listen to him. This is the same cloud God used repeatedly to speak to the Israelites in the Old Testament (Exod 19:9) that later traditions call the Shekinah.

Mini- Conclusion to these three miracle scenes:

As we can see from these three scenes in scripture, that are visible only to the disciples or a select few members within the group, Jesus is presented in a divine fashion. While it is often claimed that the Synoptic Gospels do not depict Jesus as being on par with God as does the Gospel of John, this is simply not true. The Gospel of John probably does present Jesus’s earthly life in a reframed fashion in lieu of theological reflections in numerous places but the substance of that teaching is found in the other gospels. As Christians we believe Jesus was both fully human and fully God. The gospel of John seems to take that latter perspective, reframe the ministry of Jesus and tell it through that interpretive lens. We must admit that his is not what witnesses present at the time would have seen and heard nor is it what a video camera crew following Jesus would have recorded. As two of the more conservative Bible scholars wrote in their Introduction to the New Testament:

“John thus artistically blends together the life of Jesus with the love of God revealed in Jesus. He offers historical testimony married to the spirit of truth, allowing the scriptural voice to serve as the background harmony to the living voice of the spirit. The Johannine gospel yields a creative blend of memory, mystery and midrash. The Johannine Jesus is what Jesus looks like viewed through the lens of the spirit, the paraclete.” NT Wright and Michal Bird, The New Testament in Its World.

Despite the different portrayals, it is extremely difficult maintain the notion that synoptics would disagree with John theologically here. In fact, as we have seen above, and will see several more examples of later, they agree in substance despite how John retells the story. The quote below sums up the situation nicely and is from no less a source than Pope Benedict XVI:

“If “historical” is understood to mean that the discourses of Jesus transmitted to us have to be something like a recorded transcript in order to be acknowledged as “historically” authentic, then the discourses of John are not “historical.” But the fact that they make no claim on historical accuracy of this sort by no means implies that they are merely “Jesus poems” that the members of the Johannine school gradually put together, claiming to be acting under the guidance of the Paraclete. What the Gospel is really claiming is that it has correctly rendered the substance of the discourses, of Jesus’ self-attestation in the great Jerusalem disputes, so that the readers really do encounter the decisive content of this message, and therein, the authentic figure of Jesus.” Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, p. 229

Because these three scenes are miraculous, some scholars might reject them on historical grounds. There is actually very little historical reason to do so outside of philosophical presupposition against the possibility of miracles. The argument presented thus far is not that these three scenes are bedrock facts of history, but simply that it is not true that Jesus is not presented as Divine in the synoptic Gospels. These accounts agree with the Gospel of John that Jesus and the father are one. So as we see, our earliest source material (Paul) and all four first century Gospels present Jesus as divine.

In part three we will turn to several non-miraculous scenes that virtually all critical scholars thinks are historical which also are statements of Jesus’s divinity in a first century Jewish context. Then we all wrap up the trilemma.

Vinnie

3 Likes
20

tl;dr. What are you claiming? Ah, ‘So as we see, our earliest source material (Paul) and all four first century Gospels present Jesus as divine.’. We know. What does that mean?