5 things Latter-day Saints should know about ancient Christians

[Eschaton]

10 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I did need a reminder to refresh my instinctual caution when reviewing guild exegesis. 

It is thought by the Acts Seminar to be reliant on Antiquities of the Jews. Considering that Luke-Acts contradicts Antiquities of the Jews repeatedly, the argument is compelled to affirm that the influence of Antiquities of the Jews is primarily in terms of which topics are addressed, ie Judas and Theudas, the Egyptian, the census of Quirinius, etc. This is a pretty weak argument since it begs a couple of questions:

a) it fails to account for how Luke's disagreements with Josephus weaken arguments for dependency.

b) it categorically privileges Josephus' accounts over Luke's

c) it asserts that similarities in Luke-Acts (shipwreck narratives, for instance) and references to historical characters with common names (Theudas, Judas, etc.) are unique and connected

There are at least two recent academic monographs which argue for -60s AD authorship for Acts. The debate is not settled.

Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition (2022)

Karl L. Armstrong, Dating Acts in its Jewish and Greco-Roman Contexts (2021)

There is no credible case for a 60s CE authorship for acts - the only people who argue for early dates like this are non-critical scholars. The debate is really between a late first century date and a second century date. 

But regarding your a/b/c arguments, the author of Acts doesn't have to agree with Josephus to use him as a source. It's not about agreement, it's about textual dependence. If we're theorizing about direction of dependence, it's not actually plausible that Josephus would rely on a document from an obscure, persecuted sect for his historiographical information. We don't see him relying on the gospels, after all, for his comments about Jesus or John the Baptist. Josephus was adopted into the family of the emperor of Rome and was well known. We don't even know who wrote Luke/Acts. It's much more plausible that the author of Acts would know Josephus than vice versa. 

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Pages 823-824 in your first link are inaccessible. Any summary?

Your Heiser article doesn't actually address the point, he talks about Paul's idea that Jesus was raised on the third day, and where that idea came from. 

 

Sure, I'll copy the relevant parts.

Quote

All of these factors indicate that the subject of the paired verbs σπείρεται [OGHoosier's note: this is translated "sown"] and ἐγείρεται [this is translated "raised"] in 15:42–44 is the present, perishable body. But here a further objection must be considered. It is sometimes assumed that Paul’s ellipsis of the subject in vv. 42–44 permits the conclusion that the paired verbs have distinct subjects, the subject of the first verb indeed being the present body, but the subject of the second verb referring to a new resurrection body distinct from the mortal body. Such a construal of the text, however, is simply not consistent with ancient Greek usage. Within the conventions of ancient Greek syntax, consecutive verbs, apart from the introduction of a new subject, are understood to have the same subject as the verb preceding (e.g., Matt 6:26; 16:21; Mark 4:32; 1 Cor 13:5–7; 15:3–4).50 If a change of subject between consecutive verbs occurs, this must normally (for obvious reasons of clarity) be expressed (e.g., Matt 11:5; 13:4–8; 24:40–41; Mark 12:32; Luke 1:11– 13; 12:24; Rom 14:4–6). Distinct subjects for the verbs in 15:42–44 would thus require a construction such as ὃ μὲν σπείρεται … ἄλλο ἐγείρεται (“one [body] is sown … another [body] is raised”). An exception to this rule occurs when the object of a previous verb, or a noun or pronoun within its clause, is taken up as the subject of the verb that follows (e.g., Mark 9:27; Luke 8:29; John 19:31).52 However, this syntactic feature is not present in the passage under consideration. Other exceptions are rare and are signaled by unmistakable contextual factors (e.g., Matt 14:20; 22:30; Mark 4:27; Heb 4:8; 1 John 5:16). Such factors are lacking in 1 Cor 15:42–44. Moreover, the view that the subject changes between σπείρεται and ἐγείρεται involves the further improbable claim that the subject changes repeatedly, without grammatical indication, a total of seven times in the space of vv. 42–44. There is simply no precedent for such a phenomenon anywhere in ancient Greek literature.

The conventions of Greek syntax would thus appear to demand that the consecutive verbs in 1 Cor 15:42–44 have a single subject. Indeed, the identity of subject between these two verbs receives emphatic stress through the pointed assonance of the paired verbs (σπείρεται/ἐγείρεται). The effect of the assonance is heightened by Paul’s use of asyndeton (there are no connectors between the paired verbs) and repetition or anaphora (the two verbs are each repeated four times in 15:42–44). The overall rhetorical effect is to strongly emphasize that the paired verbs have a single subject—the present, earthly body of flesh and bone.

The evidence presented above is, in my view, sufficient to establish the point: the subject of the verbal pairs throughout 15:36–49 is one and the same both for verbs denoting death (or the mortal state) and for those denoting resurrection (or the risen state). The subject throughout is the present, perishable body, which “dies” but “is made alive” again by God (v. 36), which is “sown” (σπείρεται) in mortality and death but “raised” (ἐγείρεται) to imperishable life (vv. 42–44). The importance of this for Paul’s understanding of the resurrection event can hardly be overstated. Paul does not describe resurrection as an event in which x (the present body) is sown but y (a body distinct from the present body) is raised, but in which a single x (the present body) is sown as a perishable x but raised as an imperishable x. The subject of the verbs in 15:36–49 denoting resurrection thus does not refer, as Martin claims, to some “immortal and incorruptible part” of the body that does not die, but rather refers to the mortal, corruptible body, which dies but in resurrection is restored to life and made incorruptible. The same perishable body that is “sown” in mortality and decay (σπείρεται) is thereafter “raised” to imperishable life (ἐγείρεται). Martin, Asher, and Engberg-Pedersen argue that Paul’s conception of resurrection excludes the mortal and perishable flesh from eschatological salvation. But Paul’s sequence of paired verbs in 1 Cor 15:36–49 indicates that, in Paul’s thought, it is precisely that which perishes—the mortal body—that in the resurrection is given new, imperishable life.

This does not jive with your claim that, and I quote, "Paul indicates that he means this literally when he says that flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom of heaven - ergo it must be the new "wind body." This is different from Jesus, who did believe in a corporeal resurrection.  Jesus' view of the afterlife was not as Platonic as Paul's."

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Your Heiser article doesn't actually address the point, he talks about Paul's idea that Jesus was raised on the third day, and where that idea came from.

I must confess, I am somewhat baffled by this statement. And if I put much stock in the reliability of source criticism, I would have to conclude that you didn't read points 3 and 5. Should I? 

Quote

3. The Either-Or Fallacy

Another coherence problem in Tabor’s articulation is that it presents the reader with an either-or fallacy. Tabor presents his readers with a choice between two options: either embrace the notion that Jews and the original Christians thought of resurrection as a “corpse revival” (the “standing up” of the original, now dead, body) or embrace the fact that Jews and original Christians conceived of resurrection as a remote, future, physicalized re-constitution of the dead person, making the status of anyone’s earthly bones (including those of Jesus) irrelevant to the discussion. There’s actually at least one more option: Jews and early Christians accepted both these notions as resurrection and did not set the two in opposition to each other.

Let’s consider Ezekiel 37:5-6, cited by Tabor in his essay:

“…And I will lay sinews upon you and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the LORD."

Tabor takes this vision of the dry bones as a reconstitution (“Resurrection of the dead here, clearly, is a reconstitution of the physical body”). But I would suggest it is not reconstitution. It simply does not describe or presume the same circumstances as Tabor’s other (better) examples that certainly require reconstitution. What I mean is that, in Ezekiel’s vision, there are bones in the valley, and those same bones become enfleshed and re-animated. The bones are not re-created from dust in the vision (that would be reconstitution). The vision is one of fallen victims whose skeletons lay exposed, or who were perhaps buried (Ezek 37:1). Other examples  Tabor notes, or could note, such as bodies lost at sea or immolated bodies, would obviously require reconstitution. But one cannot coherently use Ezek. 37 as reconstitution since the bones of the dead are in fact the starting point for the resurrection depiction — just as bones in a grave would be the starting point for a corpse revival resurrection. Tabor apparently (?) presumes that one can only speak of bodily resurrection (i.e., the original body “standing up in corpse revival”) before the flesh has rotted. But on what basis could this view be parsed so precisely? It cannot, and so his categories for resurrection are somewhat contrived, though the nuancing is merited. My view, as noted earlier, is that the Jewish (and Judeo-Christian) view of resurrection included both “standing up” of the old body and reconstitution where that was logically necessitated. I need Tabor to prove that a Jew or early Christian would have rejected one of those before I can begin to see this approach as making sense. I think everyone could agree that there was no uniformity of opinion among Second Temple Judaisms regarding the resurrection, a mode of resurrection, or definition of resurrection. Any argument based on that presumption is tenuous.

That's enough about the resurrection for now. Let's get on to your response for Luke-Acts. 

Quote

There is no credible case for a 60s CE authorship for acts - the only people who argue for early dates like this are non-critical scholars. The debate is really between a late first century date and a second century date.

This is a non-response. Meanwhile, "Karl Armstrong argues that a large part of the problem relates to a remarkable neglect of historical, textual, and source-critical matters. Compounding the problem further are the methodological flaws among the approaches to the middle and late date of Acts.

Armstrong thus demonstrates that a historiographical approach to the debate offers a strong framework for evaluating primary and secondary sources relating to the book of Acts. By using a historiographical approach, along with the support of modern principles of textual criticism and linguistics, the historical context of Acts is determined to be concurrent with a date of 62–63 CE."

What am I to do then, when caught between his offering and your dismissal? Better yet, what are we to do when confronted with expert disagreement? There's a very interesting philosophical literature on that right now - expert disagreement as a problem of epistemology. My assessment of the field at the moment does not look good for the sorts of people who assert "consensus" and demand it be taken on credit.

Quote

But regarding your a/b/c arguments, the author of Acts doesn't have to agree with Josephus to use him as a source. It's not about agreement, it's about textual dependence.

By which you mean to say that the author of Luke-Acts had access to Josephus but decided to contradict him. Repeatedly. But yet Josephus' otherwise-rejected account still influences certain features of textual construction. The disagreement, however, dramatically weakens the case for specific reliance of Luke-Acts on Josephus and strengthens the case for independent reporting or reliance on common sources. 

Quote

 If we're theorizing about direction of dependence, it's not actually plausible that Josephus would rely on a document from an obscure, persecuted sect for his historiographical information. We don't see him relying on the gospels, after all, for his comments about Jesus or John the Baptist. Josephus was adopted into the family of the emperor of Rome and was well known. We don't even know who wrote Luke/Acts. It's much more plausible that the author of Acts would know Josephus than vice versa. 

No need, the evidence for dependence in the first place is weak. 

[Eschaton]

On 1/24/2023 at 11:40 AM, OGHoosier said:

Sure, I'll copy the relevant parts.

This does not jive with your claim that, and I quote, "Paul indicates that he means this literally when he says that flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom of heaven - ergo it must be the new "wind body." This is different from Jesus, who did believe in a corporeal resurrection.  Jesus' view of the afterlife was not as Platonic as Paul's."

It actually doesn't contradict anything I said at all. Did you read it carefully? Paul still didn't believe that the transformed body was tangible, even though it was technically made of matter. For Jesus, the resurrected body was tangible. For Paul, it was air.  Your source only talks about whether the transformed body was technically a new body or the same body, grammatically, which isn't really relevant. 

 

On 1/24/2023 at 11:40 AM, OGHoosier said:

I must confess, I am somewhat baffled by this statement. And if I put much stock in the reliability of source criticism, I would have to conclude that you didn't read points 3 and 5. Should I? 

The section you quote (3 and 5) doesn't mention Paul at all. So I'm not sure why you're thinking this is relevant to the question of Paul's views? 

 

On 1/24/2023 at 11:40 AM, OGHoosier said:

That's enough about the resurrection for now. Let's get on to your response for Luke-Acts. 

This is a non-response. Meanwhile, "Karl Armstrong argues that a large part of the problem relates to a remarkable neglect of historical, textual, and source-critical matters. Compounding the problem further are the methodological flaws among the approaches to the middle and late date of Acts.

Armstrong thus demonstrates that a historiographical approach to the debate offers a strong framework for evaluating primary and secondary sources relating to the book of Acts. By using a historiographical approach, along with the support of modern principles of textual criticism and linguistics, the historical context of Acts is determined to be concurrent with a date of 62–63 CE."

What am I to do then, when caught between his offering and your dismissal? Better yet, what are we to do when confronted with expert disagreement? There's a very interesting philosophical literature on that right now - expert disagreement as a problem of epistemology. My assessment of the field at the moment does not look good for the sorts of people who assert "consensus" and demand it be taken on credit.

 

I'd suggest sticking to mainstream, academic scholars and not pseudo-apologists? I don't mean that to say that a second century Acts is beyond question, only that an early, pre-Marcan date for acts is non-tenable. 

 

On 1/24/2023 at 11:40 AM, OGHoosier said:

 

By which you mean to say that the author of Luke-Acts had access to Josephus but decided to contradict him. Repeatedly. But yet Josephus' otherwise-rejected account still influences certain features of textual construction. The disagreement, however, dramatically weakens the case for specific reliance of Luke-Acts on Josephus and strengthens the case for independent reporting or reliance on common sources. 

Both Matthew and Luke had access to Mark but contradict him - repeatedly. 

 

 

Edited January 26, 2023 by Eschaton

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

It actually doesn't contradict anything I said at all. Did you read it carefully? Paul still didn't believe that the transformed body was tangible, even though it was technically made of matter. For Jesus, the resurrected body was tangible. For Paul, it was air.  Your source only talks about whether the transformed body was technically a new body or the same body, grammatically, which isn't really relevant. 

Ah, but it does, because it's an enormous stretch to say that Paul's talking about "the same body" when the body is in fact materially different and entirely replaced. His description of resurrection clearly refers to the raising and imperishability of that same body. Alas, I worried that the above demonstration wouldn't get the point across, and thus came prepared with a rebuttal from later on in the paper. 

Quote

2. The understanding of the sōma pneumatikon as involving a “body composed of pneuma,” distinct in substance from the earthly body, also ignores the actual lexical meaning and usage, in Paul and in the wider ancient world, of the key terms in question. This view is thus routinely bedeviled by the gratuitous assumption that the contrast Paul draws in 15:44 is that of flesh and spirit. Paula Fredriksen, for example, understands Paul to assert that “the Christian’s fleshly body, whether living or dead, will be transformed, like Christ’s, into a spiritual body.” However, the adjective that Paul here contrasts with πνευματικός is not σάρκινος (cognate with σάρξ), referring to the flesh, but ψυχικός (cognate with ψυχή), referring to the soul. This adjective is used in texts outside the NT, without exception, with reference to the properties or activities of the soul. Modifying σῶμα as here, with reference to the present body, the adjective describes this body as given life or activity by the soul. The adjective has nothing to do with the body’s composition but denotes the source of the mortal body’s life and activity.

The meaning of the paired adjective ψυχικός in 15:44 is extremely significant, for it reveals that the exegesis of Engberg-Pedersen, Martin, and Asher involves a fundamental misunderstanding of the passage. For if (as these interpreters suggest) σῶμα πνευματικόν in this context describes the composition of the future body, as a body composed only of spirit, its correlate σῶμα ψυχικόν would perforce describe the composition of the present body, as a body composed only of soul. Paul would assert the absence of flesh and bones not only from the risen body but from the present mortal body as well! The impossibility that ψυχικός here refers to the body’s composition rules out the notion that its correlated adjective πνευματικός refers to the body’s composition. Contrasted with ψυχικός, the adjective πνευματικός must similarly refer to the source of the body’s life and activity, describing the risen body as given life by the Spirit.

3. The mode of existence described by the adjective πνευματικός is further clarified by the larger context of the letter, for the contrasted pair of adjectives ψυχικός/πνευματικός is crucially foreshadowed earlier in the epistle. In 1 Cor 2:14– 15 ὁ ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος is contrasted with ὁ πνευματικὸς [ἄνθρωπος]. In this passage the contrast is clearly not between a person composed of flesh and blood and a person composed of celestial spirit or pneuma. Rather, ὁ ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος is the person who possesses only the natural life of the soul (ψυχή) and is bereft of the Holy Spirit, in contrast with ὁ πνευματικὸς [ἄνθρωπος], the person possessing and transformed by the Spirit of God (τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ, 2:11–12).76 Similarly elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, the adjective πνευματικός is uniformly used with reference to persons or things enlivened, empowered, or transformed by the Spirit of God, including flesh-and-blood human beings (2:15; 3:1; 14:37), edible manna and water (10:3–4), and a very palpable rock (10:4). Paul’s use of this adjective in 10:3–4 with reference to the manna and water miraculously provided in the exodus is especially illuminating, for in these verses the adjective is used with reference to earthly, palpable substances of gross (not fine or ethereal) matter, clearly indicating not their composition but that they are given by the power of the Spirit. The adjective πνευματικός in Paul simply never means “composed of celestial pneuma,” and such a concept is entirely foreign to his thought (see point 4 immediately below). Rather, this adjective in Paul always has in view the power and activity of the Spirit of God. Used with σῶμα in 15:44, the adjective πνευματικός indicates that the risen body will be given life and empowered by God’s Spirit.

4. The understanding of the σῶμα πνευματικόν as the risen body given life by the Spirit, which I have argued is demanded by the context of the passage, also coheres with the larger context of Paul’s thought. For although the expression σῶμα πνευματικόν is unique here in Paul, the concept of the Spirit as the agent of resurrection life is a major theme in Paul’s theology (Rom 8:9–11; 8:23; 2 Cor 5:4–5; Gal 5:25; 6:7–8). According to this theology, the work of the Spirit in those who belong to Christ will culminate in the resurrection, when “the one who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who indwells you” (Rom 8:11). By contrast, the notion of a risen body composed of corporeal pneuma perforce entails (as Engberg-Pedersen has in my view convincingly demonstrated) a specifically Stoic and pantheistic understanding of the relation of the divine to the cosmos, with the corollary that Paul conceived of the Spirit of God as a corporeal entity, composed of the same substance as the sun, moon, and stars. Space precludes discussion here, but I regard such a reconstruction of Paul’s thought to be without historical plausibility (cf. Rom 1:20–25; 4:17; 11:33–36; 1 Cor 8:4–6; 10:7; 10:14; 1 Thess 1:9–10). But the thesis of an ethereal resurrection body in Paul depends on such a pantheistic and Stoic reading of Paul and collapses without it.

I'll note that Ware elaborates on his rejection of Pauline Stoicism at length in James Ware, “Moral Progress and Divine Power in Seneca and Paul,” in Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought (ed. John T. Fitzgerald; London/New York: Routledge, 2008), 267–83. I know you believe Paul leaned towards Platonism, but that is a disputed question and in any case you have a chicken and egg problem.  Do we think Paul has a Platonic view of the Resurrection because he believed the resurrection body was wind? Or do we think Paul viewed the resurrected body as wind because he was otherwise a Platonist? Either way, the account of the Resurrection given in 1 Corinthians, when taken in context, suggests that Paul did not believe the resurrected body was composed of wind, but rather that the term soma pneumatikon refers to the means by which the body is enlivened. 

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Both Matthew and Luke had access to Mark but contradict him - repeatedly.

Sure, but the essential agreements are far more than the differences - hence why we refer to them as the Synoptics. In the case of Luke-Acts and Josephus, the alleged "dependences" are matters of general historical record and are to be expected by two historical works referring to the same period. There are no specific instances which cannot be explained by this, and the contradictions between Josephus and Luke-Acts among the relatively few examples that there are further demotivate the view that Luke-Acts is dependent on Josephus. Josephus and Luke-Acts both seem to know that Drusilla was a Jew, that Agrippa II and Berenice were consorts, that there was a famine during the reign of Claudius. Josephus reports stomach pains associated with the death of Agrippa I, Acts reports that he was eaten by worms. These are matters of the general historical record and do not evince a literary dependence between Josephus and Luke-Acts - independent reporting or common sources can easily account for them without asserting literary dependence. I will refer to Bernier (copied from here because it's easier) when it comes to the two charges of dependence which should be taken more seriously: 

Quote

It has been argued that Luke-Acts evinces knowledge of Josephus’s works, and more specifically, his Antiquities, written ca. 93. Robinson deals with Lukan knowledge of Josephus in one sentence, dismissing it with the suggestion that it had been largely abandoned by then-contemporary scholarship. Such dismissal is not sufficient for our purposes, in no small part because more recent scholarship has sought to resuscitate the argument that Luke knew Josephus. [endnote: here Bernier notes Mason’s work, cited above]. Nonetheless, this section argues that a negative judgment on the matter of Lukan use of Josephus remains most fully warranted by the relevant data.

Insofar as the subject matter covered by Josephus partially overlaps with that covered by Luke, we should hardly be surprised to see some coincidences between their respective texts. The question is whether these coincidences suffice to affirm Lukan knowledge of Josephus. Only two areas of possible contact between Luke-Acts and Josephus merit an extended discussion: (1) the treatment of Quirinius and the census and (2) the accounts of Judas the Galilean, Theudas, and “the Egyptian.” [endnote: here Bernier cites the relevant texts in Luke-Acts and Josephus, and Mason’s work]. Both Luke and Josephus report that Quirinius undertook a census. Luke situates it during the reign of Herod the Great (d. 4 BCE), but Josephus places it following the deposition of Herod Archelaus in 6 CE. We need not determine which of these reports might be accurate and which might be inaccurate. For our purposes it is sufficient to note that to the extent that Luke’s account is fundamentally irreconcilable with Josephus’s, we have reason to doubt that either one stands as a source for the other.

This doubt only increases the closer we look at the data. Josephus and Acts mention only three—and precisely the same three—rebel leaders who operated in the decades before the Jewish War: Judas the Galilean, Theudas, and the anonymous figure known only as “the Egyptian.” The question before us is whether this convergence is best accounted for by Luke’s use of Josephus’s writings. The logical alternatives to Lukan dependence upon Josephus are that Josephus used Luke-Acts, or that Josephus and Luke-Acts each had independent reason to single out these three figures. The data alone can aid us in determining which among these alternatives is most likely. Much as with the case of the Quirinus data, the most obvious barrier to affirming either that Luke is dependent upon Josephus or Josephus upon Luke comes from the famous contradiction between the two authors. In Acts 5:36–37, Luke’s Gamaliel I places Theudas’s revolt before that of Judas the Galilean, but Josephus reports that Judas’s revolt predated Theudas’s by about forty years. It has been argued that this contradiction actually demonstrates that Luke knew Josephus, because at one point Josephus discusses Theudas shortly before discussing Judas’s sons. [endnote: here he cites Pervo]. The argument is that Luke was confused: he read about Theudas, saw a reference to Judas, and concluded that Theudas must have preceded Judas. Although this is possible, it does not seem probable. Turning to a place where Luke clearly diverges from Josephus in order to demonstrate that Luke knew Josephus only demonstrates how weak the hypothesis is. [endnote: here he cites Karl Armstrong, Dating Acts 86–93] For the same reason, we should be wary of affirming Josephus’s dependence upon Luke-Acts. Indeed, the divergence gives us reason to suspect that Luke and Josephus are independently reporting upon the same course of events, possibly using some sources in common.

Such suspicion of independence only increases when one asks a crucial empirical question: Why the Egyptian? For the sake of argument, if we suppose Josephus’s independence or priority, why did he single out the Egyptian? Why, if there were innumerable rebel figures, did Josephus choose a figure whose name he did not know? The most intelligible answer is that the Egyptian’s operations were remembered as in some way significant. These operations loomed large in the memories of those who lived through the period, even though his name did not. Josephus singled out this figure because his sources, oral or written, did so before him; he may have selected Judas and Theudas for much the same reason. This raises the possibility that Luke, too, emphasizes these three figures on the basis of his own sources. Indeed, given their precise combination of similarities and differences, it is likely that both Luke and Josephus drew upon different sources from the decades leading up to the Jewish War that nonetheless emphasized Judas, Theudas, and the Egyptian. Certainly, the crucial differences between Luke and Josephus in the treatment of these figures should make us wary of positing that either is directly dependent upon the other. Such wariness is likewise well warranted regarding the relationship between Luke-Acts and Josephus more generally.

Cumulatively, while we cannot exclude Lukan knowledge of Josephus, neither is such knowledge more than a possibility. The relationship between Luke-Acts and Josephus’s writings should be considered nonprobative for establishing the compositional date of the former.

I will add that Bernier could have said more. We are by no means obligated to believe that Luke-Acts Theudas and Judas are the same as referred to by Josephus, or that Josephus' dating is correct: 

Quote

There are two problems: (1) Since Gamaliel was speaking well before AD 44 (the year in which Herod Agrippa I died, 12:20-23), a reference to the Theudas mentioned in Josephus would be anachronistic on his lips. (2). Gamaliel goes on to describe the rising of Judas after this; but the rising of Judas took place in AD 6 before the Theudas incident in Josephus. So, it is argued, Luke makes Gamaliel commit an anachronism and put the two stories in reverse chronological order. It has been argued that Luke was led to this error by misreading Josephus who goes on after the Theudas story to mention the sons of Judas and then to explain parenthetically who this Judas was and how he had led a revolt against Rome. But this supposition is highly unlikely, since Josephus’ works were not published till c. AD 93, and since Luke cannot possibly have got the details of his story (the 400 men) from him. No plausible explanation of Luke’s alleged error has been offered. There is, therefore, much to be said for the suggestions either that Josephus got his dating wrong or (more probably) that Gamaliel is referring to another, otherwise unknown Theudas. Since there were innumerable uprisings when Herod the Great died, and since ‘Josephus describes four men bearing the name of Simon within forty years and three that of Judas within ten years, all of whom were instigators of rebellion’ (cited by Knowling, p. 158), this suggestion should not be rejected out of hand.

I. Howard Marshall, ‘Acts: An Introduction And Commentary’, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, volume 5, pp. 122-123 (1980).

As you can see, the evidence for Lukan dependence on Josephus is really quite weak, certainly not strong enough to hang one's dating hat on. Common sources or independent reporting are far more likely.

Now, for the main event: 

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

I'd suggest sticking to mainstream, academic scholars and not pseudo-apologists? I don't mean that to say that a second century Acts is beyond question, only that an early, pre-Marcan date for acts is non-tenable. 

There's the rub. 

When confronted with actual scholarly disagreement, you resort to a prophylactic dismissal of your opponents based simply on their school of thought. "I'd suggest sticking to mainstream, Stoic thinkers and not pseudo-philosophical Epicureans"? How well should that wash in Athens? How am I supposed to take that seriously? You have written your opponents out of the game simply because they are your opponents. You have assumed that which you ought to have proven. 

Don't give me any excuses about "tHeY'rE bIaSeD" or "tHeY hAvE pRiOr CoMmItMeNt", I know too much about academia to believe the lame apologetic that it is resistant to prurient interests like publish-or-perish or the primarily social-reputational incentive structure of the modern academy. That's tangential anyways, the real problem is that you mitigate the cognitive dissonance of expert disagreement by arbitrarily demoting one party from the status of "expert." I'm not going to allow that. What makes an "expert" worth listening to is their background knowledge and awareness of the state of the data, not their prior commitments or lack thereof. Bernier and Armstrong have that just as much as Mason or Pervo or Tabor. When the "experts" disagree, the weight of their expertise as a heuristic for reliability cancels out, and you have two choices: actually deal with their arguments as opposed to their numinous "expertise", or else lapse into a placid agnosticism which is very much at odds with the declarative rhetorical style which you have heretofore adopted.

That's even before we get into the problems of the vote-counting heuristic which underlies arguments based on "mainstream", regardless of whether that "mainstream" consensus is factual or mythical. 

I must therefore decline your advice to "stick to mainstream, academic scholars." Academic heterodoxy is an acceptable price to pay for good argument.

Edited January 26, 2023 by OGHoosier

[InCognitus]

On 1/23/2023 at 8:48 AM, Eschaton said:

It's not my interpretation at all. It comes from Biblical scholar James Tabor. You can hear him talk about Paul's "wind body" idea here:

I thought you might be getting your ideas from James Tabor, but there are other possibilities as well.  

I have been working 10 billable hour days lately (it's that time of year for my line of work).  On Monday when I read your post, I had one of the sources in mind that OGHoosier posted (from Michael Heiser), but he did a much better job of addressing the "wind body" problem than I could have ever done.  That topic has been thoroughly put to rest.

On 1/23/2023 at 8:48 AM, Eschaton said:

In the cosmology of Jesus' own time and culture, his having ascended to heaven isn't subtle at all - it says loud and clear that Jesus is a god. Just because it's subtle to you doesn't mean it was subtle them. 

My “subtle” comment was regarding your use of Romans 1:3-4 to support the divinity of Christ.  There is no mention in those two verses that Jesus is God, or of Jesus ascending into heaven (the part that you are bringing up now), but only that he was made the Son of God, and the resurrection from the dead.  

And what you said above is exactly my point about the early Christian teaching that men become gods.  In the time and culture of the first century Christians, they recognized the future promise of sitting with God in his throne as teaching that men can become gods.  And just because it isn’t recognizable to you it doesn’t mean it wasn’t recognizable to them.

On 1/23/2023 at 8:48 AM, Eschaton said:

"Son of God" can mean a lot of different things. Even ancient Jewish kings were called "sons of God," but not in the same sense exactly as Jesus. 

While it the idea that believers went to heaven after they die became a very common Christian belief, it certainly isn't the original Christian belief. Originally humans were to stay on earth forever after their resurrection. 

Becoming "sons of God" in the first century Jewish and Christian context, was equivalent to becoming divine. 

Even James Tabor, who sees Paul as our earliest witness in Christianity, understood Paul's "sons of God" teaching to be that humans can become divine.

Matthew Thiessen makes the same argument about the sons of God in his book, Paul and the Gentile Problem.  In making his case, he quotes from Tabor (shown in blue below): 

Quote

Sons of God and Heirs of the Kosmos

The preceding discussion sheds light on other aspects of Paul's thinking, most notably for the arguments of this book Paul's claim that those who are in Christ, and those who are thus seed and sons of Abraham, are also sons of God (Gal 3:26).  Those who receive the pneuma of Christ become not only sons of Abraham, but also sons of God, since Christ is both the seed of Abraham and the son of God (Gal 4:6).  In contrast to J. Louis Martyn, who contends that Paul stresses divine sonship in Galatians 3-4 in order to minimize the importance of Abrahamic sonship, the preceding interpretation of the promise of the pneuma provides an explanation for the way in which Paul's discussion of the seed of Abraham and Abrahamic sonship in Galatians 3-4 turns into a discussion of divine sonship as well.  For Paul, genealogical descent from Abraham results in divine descent.  Since Paul understands the promises to Abraham and to his seed to mean that they would become like the stars in a qualitative sense, then this promise requires that they become divine or semi-divine beings like the angels.  After all, Jewish literature frequently identifies the angels as "sons of God" (e.g. Gen 6:2, Deut 32:8 LXX).  Thus when he avers that Christ followers become sons of God, Paul implies that the reception of the divine pneuma divinizes them.  This divinization, as Tabor notes, is christologically focused:  "The equation of Jesus the Son of God, with the many glorified sons of God to follow is God's means of bringing into existence a family (i.e., 'many brothers') of cosmic beings, the Sons of God, who share his heavenly doxa.  Or, to put it another way, Jesus already stands at the head of a new genus of cosmic 'brothers' who await their full transformation at his arrival from heaven."[Footnote]  Like the angels, those in Christ become pneumatic beings--now, in part; at the eschaton, in whole.  Through the reception of the pneuma, those in Christ now have a share in the same indestructible resurrection life.

[Footnote: James D. Tabor, Things Unutterable: Paul's Ascent to Paradise in Its Greco-Roman, Judaic, and Early Christian Contexts, p. 12]

Matthew Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem, Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 154-155.  See Google Book image here. 

Tabor is a little more explicit in saying that Paul understood that men "become gods" in his book, Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity.  (See Google Book image here.)  On pages 134-135, he writes:

Quote

Paul says little more about the preexistent Christ as a manifestation of Yahweh other than that he was present in the days of Moses.  Paul is focused entirely on the other end of history, the termination of what he calls "this present evil age" (Galatians 1:14).  What Jesus represents to Paul is one thing and one thing only--the cosmic, preexistent Christ being "born of a woman," as a flesh-and-blood mortal human being now transformed to a life-giving Spirit.  This is what drove Paul and excited him most.  For him it explained the Genesis creation itself and accounted for all the subsequent "blood, sweat, and tears" of the human story.  Humans were created to become Gods!  "This slight, momentary affliction" was preparing them for an "eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison" (2 Corinthians 4:17).

This is something that originated in first century Christianity.

On 1/23/2023 at 8:48 AM, Eschaton said:

Have you considered that second century Christians were far more inclined to view it this way because by the second century Judaism had essentially been expunged from Christianity? 

I don't see how expunging Judaism from Christianity would make Christians more inclined to believe that men become gods, given that this was also a concept in Second Temple Judaism.  But perhaps this is one reason why the teaching of the deification of humans fell out of favor in the later centuries. 

On 1/23/2023 at 8:48 AM, Eschaton said:

In the NRSV, the most widely used translation by scholars, the word worship is not used. 

The NRSV seems to be inclined to use "worship" when the translators think the context refers to an awareness of divine presence, but not in other contexts.   For example, in the story of the woman of Canaan, who sought out Jesus to heal her daughter, the NRSV translates Matthew 15:25 as "But she came and knelt before him, saying, 'Lord, help me.'", whereas many other versions (KJV, NKJV, NLT, ASV) use "worship".  So it's no wonder that the translators would not use the word "worship" for humans that Jesus exalts in Revelation 3:9.  It all has to do with the translator's sense of "what's right".  Most translators are uncomfortable with humans being worshipped, so that's no surprise.  

On 1/23/2023 at 8:48 AM, Eschaton said:

Humans are made of dirt, temporarily animated by the breath of God. Apparently that's not the case with divine beings. While some humans can be "messengers" that's obviously not what I was referring to when I said angels. 

Humans have eternal spirits that came from God and are placed inside the bodies made of "dirt".  And if Jesus is divine and was "made like unto his brethren" (Heb 2:17), then it doesn't seem that the present "dirt" situation makes a difference to the question of divine potential. 

And the "sons of God" were later changed into angels, in later texts.  They weren't originally thought of as angels.  

On 1/23/2023 at 8:48 AM, Eschaton said:

To prove that it started there, all I have to show is the that 2nd century Christians started saying that men will become Gods, and we find no similar statements in the first century or earlier. You're getting burden of proof all backwards - you can't just assert because some 2nd century Christians believed something that it was believed also hundreds of years earlier. Argument by assertion convinces no one. 

You misunderstand my point.  You said, “Reading the second century Christian fathers will tell you what Christians started teaching and believing in the second century.”  You can't assert that they "started" teaching and believing a particular doctrine just because it may be the earliest written example of the doctrine.  At the very least, you might be able to say it's the first written account of such a teaching (I disagree on that), but putting something in writing for the first time is not the same thing as "starting" to teach and believe a particular thing.  And in order to prove it was the beginning of such teachings, you'd need to prove they were teaching something to the contrary prior to that point.  And I agree that the mere existence of a teaching in writing in the second century alone doesn't prove anything about their teaching prior to that time.  

But I do find that there is much evidence that the teaching of the doctrine of deification came down to the second century Christians from the tradition of the apostles.  One early statement on the exaltation of mankind comes from Clement of Rome (35 AD - 99 AD).  And then we have a gap in time where there are virtually no Christian writings at all.  And then we have clear statements on deification from Justin Martyr (100 AD - 165 AD), and then Theophilus of Antioch (c. 120-190), Irenaeus (c. 130-200), Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215), Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235), Origen (185-254), etc. etc. 

Over in the Apostasy folder, I noticed that you said, “There were many competing Christian communities in the first century - none of them could really be called "The Catholic Church"”  The same thing might be said of Christians in the second century.  But that being the case, then how did they have this doctrine in common among them if it did not originate from a common earlier source?  Did they invent it independently in different parts of the Christian world?

But I think there is good evidence that the first century Christians also taught this doctrine, some of it I have already presented.  And apparently James Tabor agrees.  It was part of the Jewish culture they came from as well as in the teachings of the apostles.  There is more I could present on this, but I'll save it for another time (it's late and I'm getting sleepy).

Edited January 29, 2023 by InCognitus

[Eschaton]

On 1/29/2023 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

I thought you might be getting your ideas from James Tabor, but there are other possibilities as well.  

I have been working 10 billable hour days lately (it's that time of year for my line of work).  On Monday when I read your post, I had one of the sources in mind that OGHoosier posted (from Michael Heiser), but he did a much better job of addressing the "wind body" problem than I could have ever done.  That topic has been thoroughly put to rest.

His source actually didn't address my the topic at all - instead he quoted sources talking about whether the resurrected body was grammatically a different body or the same body, and what was meant by Jesus being raised on the third day. Nothing actually refuted Paul's "spiritual body" doctrine.  

 

On 1/29/2023 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

My “subtle” comment was regarding your use of Romans 1:3-4 to support the divinity of Christ.  There is no mention in those two verses that Jesus is God, or of Jesus ascending into heaven (the part that you are bringing up now), but only that he was made the Son of God, and the resurrection from the dead.

Again, subtle to you maybe. Not to a first century near eastern person. Going up to heaven means you have become a divine being. That changed later when heaven became democratized. Now Christians think that every believer gets to live in heaven - whereas in the original apostolic vision, Jesus being raised up to heaven was a clear indication that he had been made divine. 

 

On 1/29/2023 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

 

And what you said above is exactly my point about the early Christian teaching that men become gods.  In the time and culture of the first century Christians, they recognized the future promise of sitting with God in his throne as teaching that men can become gods.  And just because it isn’t recognizable to you it doesn’t mean it wasn’t recognizable to them.

This is your speculation only. Again, we find no first century source saying men will become gods. 

 

On 1/29/2023 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Becoming "sons of God" in the first century Jewish and Christian context, was equivalent to becoming divine. 

It really depends on context. In the Hebrew Bible, Israel is often referred to as the "son of God."

 

On 1/29/2023 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Even James Tabor, who sees Paul as our earliest witness in Christianity, understood Paul's "sons of God" teaching to be that humans can become divine.

Your source actually gets at the distinction I was trying to impress upon you - one can be divine without being an actual "god." From your quote: "Like the angels, those in Christ become pneumatic beings--now, in part; at the eschaton, in whole.  Through the reception of the pneuma, those in Christ now have a share in the same indestructible resurrection life."

 

On 1/29/2023 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Matthew Thiessen makes the same argument about the sons of God in his book, Paul and the Gentile Problem.  In making his case, he quotes from Tabor (shown in blue below): 

Tabor is a little more explicit in saying that Paul understood that men "become gods" in his book, Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity.  (See Google Book image here.)  On pages 134-135, he writes:

This is something that originated in first century Christianity.

When Tabor is being less poetic about it, "angels" is actually the term he uses. 

 

On 1/29/2023 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

I don't see how expunging Judaism from Christianity would make Christians more inclined to believe that men become gods, given that this was also a concept in Second Temple Judaism.  But perhaps this is one reason why the teaching of the deification of humans fell out of favor in the later centuries. 

The NRSV seems to be inclined to use "worship" when the translators think the context refers to an awareness of divine presence, but not in other contexts.   For example, in the story of the woman of Canaan, who sought out Jesus to heal her daughter, the NRSV translates Matthew 15:25 as "But she came and knelt before him, saying, 'Lord, help me.'", whereas many other versions (KJV, NKJV, NLT, ASV) use "worship".  So it's no wonder that the translators would not use the word "worship" for humans that Jesus exalts in Revelation 3:9.  It all has to do with the translator's sense of "what's right".  Most translators are uncomfortable with humans being worshipped, so that's no surprise.  

While there is some fuzziness between the human and divine realm in Judaism, I think demigods and divinization is more common in Greek theology. 

 

On 1/29/2023 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

Humans have eternal spirits that came from God and are placed inside the bodies made of "dirt".  And if Jesus is divine and was "made like unto his brethren" (Heb 2:17), then it doesn't seem that the present "dirt" situation makes a difference to the question of divine potential. 

Originally the human "spirit" was just the breath of God. It wasn't an intangible version of you - it was just life force that animated you throughout your life, and returned to God at your dead. It was no longer "you" at that point any more than your last breath is "you." 

As to what Jesus ultimately was, that really depends on the source. The original apostles thought he was a human prophet who had been adopted as the divine Son of God. Paul thought he was an angel who incarnated as a human and then was promoted to higher status upon his resurrection. The author of John thought he was the Logos who existed as God's lieutenant from the beginning of creation. 

 

 

On 1/29/2023 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

And the "sons of God" were later changed into angels, in later texts.  They weren't originally thought of as angels.  

In the Hebrew Bible, we do see that change, which represents an evolution from the original pantheon of Gods in Israelite worship to Israelite henotheism. 

 

On 1/29/2023 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

You misunderstand my point.  You said, “Reading the second century Christian fathers will tell you what Christians started teaching and believing in the second century.”  You can't assert that they "started" teaching and believing a particular doctrine just because it may be the earliest written example of the doctrine.  At the very least, you might be able to say it's the first written account of such a teaching (I disagree on that), but putting something in writing for the first time is not the same thing as "starting" to teach and believe a particular thing.  And in order to prove it was the beginning of such teachings, you'd need to prove they were teaching something to the contrary prior to that point.  And I agree that the mere existence of a teaching in writing in the second century alone doesn't prove anything about their teaching prior to that time.  

If you want to assert that it started before the second century, you'll need a first century source asserting that men become gods. 

 

On 1/29/2023 at 1:23 AM, InCognitus said:

But I do find that there is much evidence that the teaching of the doctrine of deification came down to the second century Christians from the tradition of the apostles.  One early statement on the exaltation of mankind comes from Clement of Rome (35 AD - 99 AD).  And then we have a gap in time where there are virtually no Christian writings at all.  And then we have clear statements on deification from Justin Martyr (100 AD - 165 AD), and then Theophilus of Antioch (c. 120-190), Irenaeus (c. 130-200), Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215), Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235), Origen (185-254), etc. etc. 

Over in the Apostasy folder, I noticed that you said, “There were many competing Christian communities in the first century - none of them could really be called "The Catholic Church"”  The same thing might be said of Christians in the second century.  But that being the case, then how did they have this doctrine in common among them if it did not originate from a common earlier source?  Did they invent it independently in different parts of the Christian world?

But I think there is good evidence that the first century Christians also taught this doctrine, some of it I have already presented.  And apparently James Tabor agrees.  It was part of the Jewish culture they came from as well as in the teachings of the apostles.  There is more I could present on this, but I'll save it for another time (it's late and I'm getting sleepy).

There were some doctrines that were common across multiple factions, but some differences as well - just as there are commonalities and differences between different sects today. 

[Eschaton]

On 1/26/2023 at 12:05 PM, OGHoosier said:

Ah, but it does, because it's an enormous stretch to say that Paul's talking about "the same body" when the body is in fact materially different and entirely replaced. His description of resurrection clearly refers to the raising and imperishability of that same body. Alas, I worried that the above demonstration wouldn't get the point across, and thus came prepared with a rebuttal from later on in the paper.

 

It doesn't. Paul says the body is transformed from flesh to spirit. Same body, wildly different characteristics from before and after. 

 

On 1/26/2023 at 12:05 PM, OGHoosier said:

 

I'll note that Ware elaborates on his rejection of Pauline Stoicism at length in James Ware, “Moral Progress and Divine Power in Seneca and Paul,” in Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought (ed. John T. Fitzgerald; London/New York: Routledge, 2008), 267–83. I know you believe Paul leaned towards Platonism, but that is a disputed question and in any case you have a chicken and egg problem.  Do we think Paul has a Platonic view of the Resurrection because he believed the resurrection body was wind? Or do we think Paul viewed the resurrected body as wind because he was otherwise a Platonist? Either way, the account of the Resurrection given in 1 Corinthians, when taken in context, suggests that Paul did not believe the resurrected body was composed of wind, but rather that the term soma pneumatikon refers to the means by which the body is enlivened. 

Paul doesn't say that the (dead) physical body is enlivened by spirit, but rather that the body of flesh is transformed into a body of spirit. 

 

On 1/26/2023 at 12:05 PM, OGHoosier said:

Sure, but the essential agreements are far more than the differences - hence why we refer to them as the Synoptics. In the case of Luke-Acts and Josephus, the alleged "dependences" are matters of general historical record and are to be expected by two historical works referring to the same period.

There are quite a few serious differences, as well as many similarities. The authors of Matthew and Luke felt at ease in changing their Markan source as it suited them. We can see them making these changes in the text. Matthew also seems to freely elaborate on his Q source. 

 

On 1/26/2023 at 12:05 PM, OGHoosier said:

 

There are no specific instances which cannot be explained by this, and the contradictions between Josephus and Luke-Acts among the relatively few examples that there are further demotivate the view that Luke-Acts is dependent on Josephus. Josephus and Luke-Acts both seem to know that Drusilla was a Jew, that Agrippa II and Berenice were consorts, that there was a famine during the reign of Claudius. Josephus reports stomach pains associated with the death of Agrippa I, Acts reports that he was eaten by worms. These are matters of the general historical record and do not evince a literary dependence between Josephus and Luke-Acts - independent reporting or common sources can easily account for them without asserting literary dependence. I will refer to Bernier (copied from here because it's easier) when it comes to the two charges of dependence which should be taken more seriously: 

If disagreement rules out dependency, then Matthew and Luke would not depend on Mark. But they do. This argument is a dead end. 

 

On 1/26/2023 at 12:05 PM, OGHoosier said:

I will add that Bernier could have said more. We are by no means obligated to believe that Luke-Acts Theudas and Judas are the same as referred to by Josephus, or that Josephus' dating is correct: 

As you can see, the evidence for Lukan dependence on Josephus is really quite weak, certainly not strong enough to hang one's dating hat on. Common sources or independent reporting are far more likely.

Textual dependence is actually very strong evidence. Is it strong evidence for a second century date? At the very least it takes Acts to the late 90s.  

 

On 1/26/2023 at 12:05 PM, OGHoosier said:

Now, for the main event: 

There's the rub. 

When confronted with actual scholarly disagreement, you resort to a prophylactic dismissal of your opponents based simply on their school of thought. "I'd suggest sticking to mainstream, Stoic thinkers and not pseudo-philosophical Epicureans"? How well should that wash in Athens? How am I supposed to take that seriously? You have written your opponents out of the game simply because they are your opponents. You have assumed that which you ought to have proven. 

Don't give me any excuses about "tHeY'rE bIaSeD" or "tHeY hAvE pRiOr CoMmItMeNt", I know too much about academia to believe the lame apologetic that it is resistant to prurient interests like publish-or-perish or the primarily social-reputational incentive structure of the modern academy. That's tangential anyways, the real problem is that you mitigate the cognitive dissonance of expert disagreement by arbitrarily demoting one party from the status of "expert." I'm not going to allow that. What makes an "expert" worth listening to is their background knowledge and awareness of the state of the data, not their prior commitments or lack thereof. Bernier and Armstrong have that just as much as Mason or Pervo or Tabor. When the "experts" disagree, the weight of their expertise as a heuristic for reliability cancels out, and you have two choices: actually deal with their arguments as opposed to their numinous "expertise", or else lapse into a placid agnosticism which is very much at odds with the declarative rhetorical style which you have heretofore adopted.

That's even before we get into the problems of the vote-counting heuristic which underlies arguments based on "mainstream", regardless of whether that "mainstream" consensus is factual or mythical. 

I must therefore decline your advice to "stick to mainstream, academic scholars." Academic heterodoxy is an acceptable price to pay for good argument.

The problem with your reliance on fringe scholars is that they are fringe for a reason. Their arguments don't hold up to the scrutiny of their peers. For instance, you quoted Jonathan Bernier multiple times. He doesn't represent any significant school of thought. In Rethinking the Dates of New Testament Composition, Bernier tries to date the synoptics prior to 70 CE, reasoning:

"insofar as we can be confident that the Son of Man did not come on a cloud shortly after the destruction of the temple nor send his angels to gather the elect from the four winds, we can also be reasonably confident that neither did someone in the post-70 period suggest he had by means of a retroactive prophecy."

Nothing here rules out a date within a couple of decades for the synoptics. The Jewish Roman war was a sign of the end. Someone writing 10-15 years later would have reasonably thought that the end was still near. Besides that, images of Jerusalem surrounded by armies make a lot more sense coming from someone for whom it had already happened.

Bernier argues that Mark must have been written in Rome in the 40s, because it doesn't talk a lot about a gentile mission, but he also says Mark was written in Rome. It's hard to see how there would have been a Roman Christian community without a gentile mission. And that ignores the fact that the author of Mark himself says he and his readers have witnessed the armies descending upon Jerusalem, which dates Mark to the time of the Jewish Roman war.  Not to mention the "Render unto Caesar" coinage issue which again dates Mark to the Jewish Roman war. 

He writes: "…the argument that Matthew cannot be the author of the Matthean gospel, as he would not have needed to repurpose the story of Levi’s calling in order to narrate his own. Although we do not know enough about why (on the supposition of Matthean priority) Matthew made this change for us to reject Matthean authorship with certainty, the biblical data are sufficiently ambiguous as to raise legitimate critical doubts." This is just silly. If Matthew is the author of Matthew, he wouldn't need to copy the biographical elements of Matthew from Mark.

The point being, fringe scholars tend to do sloppy work. Their views are fringe for a reason. Better to stick to actual critical scholars rather than the pseudo-apologists. 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Eschaton

[OGHoosier]

12 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

His source actually didn't address my the topic at all - instead he quoted sources talking about whether the resurrected body was grammatically a different body or the same body, and what was meant by Jesus being raised on the third day. Nothing actually refuted Paul's "spiritual body" doctrine.

Have you read my second response to you, wherein I quote Ware to demonstrate that the term soma pneumatikon (translated "spiritual body" in the KJV) refers to the enlivening agent of the body and not its composition? 

By the way, at the pain of repetition, the "wind body" doctrine ain't Paul's. It's yours. I would encourage a little more humility in your posting, because at this point we have no reason to take what you say at face value. And we are given no other value on which to take it.

Like so:

23 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

If you want to assert that it started before the second century, you'll need a first century source asserting that men become gods. 

😆 No, he doesn't. This is a silly rule. The first centuries AD have left a fragmentary literary record and had a higher reliance on oral transmission than our contemporary era. It is illogical to assert that, because a certain idea shows up in documents in the second century, it must have started then. With our fragmentary understanding of the literature at the time, such an assertion is baldly fallacious. Under such circumstances the presence of an idea in documents provides a latest date on when the idea entered the discourse - not an earliest.

And this presumes that we dismiss Clement, which we have no reason to do. 

32 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

The original apostles thought he was a human prophet who had been adopted as the divine Son of God. Paul thought he was an angel who incarnated as a human and then was promoted to higher status upon his resurrection. The author of John thought he was the Logos who existed as God's lieutenant from the beginning of creation. 

Respectfully, I don't have sufficient reason to trust your exegesis at this point. I especially don't have reason to do so when Paul and the original apostles were in contact throughout their lives, and such a conflict is not anywhere indicated. Paul clashed with Peter on the status of the law of Moses, not the fundamental nature of Christ. This speculative proliferation of schools of thought based on minor wording changes is amusing at this point, not probative. 

39 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

When Tabor is being less poetic about it, "angels" is actually the term he uses. 

I trust Tabor to choose his words well, I have no need of your interpretation.

[Eschaton]

4 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Have you read my second response to you, wherein I quote Ware to demonstrate that the term soma pneumatikon (translated "spiritual body" in the KJV) refers to the enlivening agent of the body and not its composition? 

I'm afraid it's James Ware vs Paul on this. Ware seems to indicate that he's something of an apologist so this appears to be his attempt at turning Paul into a modern orthodox Christian. 

 

 

4 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

By the way, at the pain of repetition, the "wind body" doctrine ain't Paul's. It's yours. I would encourage a little more humility in your posting, because at this point we have no reason to take what you say at face value. And we are given no other value on which to take it.

No, it's uniquely Paul's. I didn't come up with it. I also don't share Paul's belief about the resurrection  - and neither did Jesus. 

 

4 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Like so:

😆 No, he doesn't. This is a silly rule. The first centuries AD have left a fragmentary literary record and had a higher reliance on oral transmission than our contemporary era. It is illogical to assert that, because a certain idea shows up in documents in the second century, it must have started then. With our fragmentary understanding of the literature at the time, such an assertion is baldly fallacious. Under such circumstances the presence of an idea in documents provides a latest date on when the idea entered the discourse - not an earliest.

To make a positive claim that first century Christians believed in divinization, we'd need positive evidence to support it. None exists - it's all second century. 

4 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

 

Respectfully, I don't have sufficient reason to trust your exegesis at this point. I especially don't have reason to do so when Paul and the original apostles were in contact throughout their lives, and such a conflict is not anywhere indicated. Paul clashed with Peter on the status of the law of Moses, not the fundamental nature of Christ. This speculative proliferation of schools of thought based on minor wording changes is amusing at this point, not probative. 

I trust Tabor to choose his words well, I have no need of your interpretation.

Paul actually had a different Christology than the earliest disciples of Jesus. While the disciples held to an adoptionist Christology that held Jesus as human prophet who was adopted as God's son at his resurrection, Paul believed that Jesus was some kind of divine being (probably an angel) who incarnated as a human being, and was rewarded for his faithfulness unto death by being appointed the Son of God at his resurrection. 

 

[OGHoosier]

5 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Paul doesn't say that the (dead) physical body is enlivened by spirit, but rather that the body of flesh is transformed into a body of spirit. 

Did you not read my response (dated Thursday, January 26) in which I quote James Ware to demonstrate that the phrase soma pneumatikon (translated "spiritual body") does not refer to the composition of the body but rather the enlivening agent thereof? 

Because I have to assume that you haven't, since you don't engage any of the quoted material at all.  Instead, you simply re-assert your position as if nothing has happened. Regrettable, though not for me.

If this is representative of how you engage arguments, then we would have to be fools to take your word for anything. 

5 hours ago, Eschaton said:

There are quite a few serious differences, as well as many similarities. The authors of Matthew and Luke felt at ease in changing their Markan source as it suited them. We can see them making these changes in the text. Matthew also seems to freely elaborate on his Q source. 

This is, of course, assuming Markan priority, which is the clear majority position but not uncontested. I personally lean in the direction of Markan priority, but I have seen arguments for Matthean priority (the Augustinian and de Griesbach hypotheses) which I don't feel comfortable just ruling out. Markan priority seems to be the most likely (as long as you don't fret too much about the theoretical epicycle that is Q, which is necessary for the whole thing to hang together), but it's not cleanly so. Based on the evidence, I'm not so willing to pronounce ex cathedra on these issues, where very little can really be known. 

I'll note that the judgements between these varying theories are all based on what the judger thinks is "most likely" about any given theory. Given that any individual's plausibility structures are contingent on the quirks of their personality, their own experience, and their cultural setting...we don't have grounds to "know" very much.

See this excellent thread by the indomitable Dan Ellsworth: 

 

5 hours ago, Eschaton said:

If disagreement rules out dependency, then Matthew and Luke would not depend on Mark. But they do. This argument is a dead end. 

Lol, the nature of dependency and disagreement in the Synoptics is of an entirely different nature than the alleged dependency between Luke-Acts and Josephus. The Synoptics have frequent recurrences of the exact same phrasing and very similar narrative arcs. When compared, similarity is the rule rather than contradiction. Meanwhile, the only cases of alleged dependency between Luke-Acts and Josephus are merely references to events in the general historical record. The strongest alleged cases of dependency are literally contradictions. The Synoptics are not an analogous case. 

5 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Textual dependence is actually very strong evidence. Is it strong evidence for a second century date? At the very least it takes Acts to the late 90s. 

It would be strong evidence if there were actually strong evidence for dependence of Luke-Acts on Josephus. There is not. 

5 hours ago, Eschaton said:

The problem with your reliance on fringe scholars is that they are fringe for a reason. Their arguments don't hold up to the scrutiny of their peers. For instance, you quoted Jonathan Bernier multiple times. He doesn't represent any significant school of thought. In Rethinking the Dates of New Testament Composition, Bernier tries to date the synoptics prior to 70 CE, reasoning:

"insofar as we can be confident that the Son of Man did not come on a cloud shortly after the destruction of the temple nor send his angels to gather the elect from the four winds, we can also be reasonably confident that neither did someone in the post-70 period suggest he had by means of a retroactive prophecy."

Nothing hear rules out a date within a couple of decades for the synoptics. The Jewish Roman war was a sign of the end. Someone writing 10-15 years later would have reasonably thought that the end was still near. Besides that, images of Jerusalem surrounded by armies make a lot more sense coming from someone for whom it had already happened. Not to mention the "Render unto Ceasar" coinage issue which again dates Mark to the Jewish Roman war. 

Don't hold up to the scrutiny of their peers, huh? I haven't seen any withering academic criticism of Armstrong, Bernier, or Ware, and their works appear to have been well-received by those academics whose comments I've seen. Just you...and perhaps this anonymous Reddit comment which your response parallels very closely, even including a typo. I must conclude that your response is dependent on it, no? It would be a scandal for the methodology of source-criticism if I were mistaken. 

Some "peer," huh? That said, since I reject credentialism, I'll take up the arguments you put forward one by one. Should be fun. 

5 hours ago, Eschaton said:

"insofar as we can be confident that the Son of Man did not come on a cloud shortly after the destruction of the temple nor send his angels to gather the elect from the four winds, we can also be reasonably confident that neither did someone in the post-70 period suggest he had by means of a retroactive prophecy."

Nothing hear rules out a date within a couple of decades for the synoptics. The Jewish Roman war was a sign of the end. Someone writing 10-15 years later would have reasonably thought that the end was still near.

On the one hand, that's a fair point. On the other hand, this is an "eye of the beholder" scenario. Personally, I don't hold a preterist interpretation of Christ's Olivet discourse, so this evidence is nonprobative to me. It's not Bernier's only point, though. 

5 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Not to mention the "Render unto Ceasar" coinage issue which again dates Mark to the Jewish Roman war. 

I'm familiar with Zeichmann's argument. I think it fails because a) it depends on Mark being written in Syro-Phoenicia when it could just as easily been written in Rome, and b) Jesus was speaking to Pharisees and Herodians in the temple - the same temple inhabited by moneychangers who processed currency brought by Jewish pilgrims from across the empire. The temple was a major financial center. The availability of a denarius in that specific circumstance is quite a bit higher than in Galilee, and thus one could likely be found were Jesus to request one specifically...which He did. The concept of a ruler's face being on coinage was ubiquitous in the ancient Near East, I don't think anybody would have struggled to understand even if they didn't have much local denarii circulation.

5 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Bernier argues that Mark must have been written in Rome in the 40s, because it doesn't talk a lot about a gentile mission, but he also says Mark was written in Rome. It's hard to see how there would have been a Roman Christian community without a gentile mission.

It's pretty easy to see when you realize that Rome had a substantial Jewish population. This is well known. Paul interacts with them in Acts 28:17-29. The Christian community in Rome had significant Judaic influence, as evidenced by Paul's need to contend against the Law of Moses in the Epistle to the Romans. 

Plus there doesn't need to be much of a Christian community for Mark to be there writing in the first place.

5 hours ago, Eschaton said:

And that ignores the fact that the author of Mark himself says he and his readers have witnessed the armies descending upon Jerusalem, which dates Mark to the time of the Jewish Roman war. 

Lol he definitely does not, I just skimmed the entire Gospel of Mark. Are you referring to the "abomination of desolation" by chance? You know that is susceptible to multiple interpretations. Why so conclusive?

5 hours ago, Eschaton said:

He writes: "…the argument that Matthew cannot be the author of the Matthean gospel, as he would not have needed to repurpose the story of Levi’s calling in order to narrate his own. Although we do not know enough about why (on the supposition of Matthean priority) Matthew made this change for us to reject Matthean authorship with certainty, the biblical data are sufficiently ambiguous as to raise legitimate critical doubts." This is just silly. If Matthew is the author of Matthew, he wouldn't need to copy the biographical elements of Matthew from Mark.

Now this argument is interesting, but only matters if you assume Markan priority, which I'm not entirely sold on. Furthermore, it's reasonable that Mark would want to spare Matthew the stain of having been a publican, refraining from naming him as a courtesy. Jesus gave Semitic nicknames to 3 of His disciples (Simon/Cephas, James & John/Boanerges), and you also have the apostle "Lebbaeus surnamed Thaddeaus", Joseph Barnabas (Paul's missionary companion) and John Mark. Second names aren't that odd. If Matthew chose to identify himself as the Levi in question, it would make sense to do so using the same formula as Mark. Particularly when one is a religiously informed Jew and familiar with the nature of biblical quotation and restatement, as Matthew obviously is. Not to mention that the point of Matthew is to set forward an account of Jesus' life, not an autobiography. I agree with Bernier that the evidence is ambiguous here, not a knock-down argument against Matthean authorship as you claim. 

Furthermore, I'll note that you have reproduced an error which Reddit user 634425 makes - Matthew's self-identification with Levi is only a "problem" for Matthew if Mark comes first. Therefore that parenthetical comment should read "on the supposition of Markan priority."  

5 hours ago, Eschaton said:

The point being, fringe scholars tend to do sloppy work. Their views are fringe for a reason. Better to stick to actual critical scholars rather than the pseudo-apologists. 

No such point has been made. You haven't engaged with Armstrong's Dating Acts at all. You haven't engaged with Bernier's actual methodology in the slightest. That's forgiveable because you can't be expected to have copies of their works at hand. What is not forgiveable is presuming, as you do, that the case is already closed when in fact the debate is open, as I sought to prove. You have approached @InCognitus and myself from a position of presumed superiority, announcing your verdicts ex cathedra and reducing a complicated and open-ended field of study into rhetorically convenient conclusions for yourself. When confronted, you have either ignored counterarguments (Ware's response) or taken potshots copied from a Reddit comment in order to handwave away Bernier's credibility. To this I have only one response:

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by OGHoosier

[OGHoosier]

34 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

I'm afraid it's James Ware vs Paul on this. Ware seems to indicate that he's something of an apologist so this appears to be his attempt at turning Paul into a modern orthodox Christian. 

Wow. You are confronted with solid syntactic and contextual evidence that your interpretation of Paul is mistaken and you don't deal with that...you just dismiss Ware because he belongs to a different school of thought. Don't you dare accuse anybody of "dogmatism" ever again. 

This is disgraceful. 

40 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

No, it's uniquely Paul's. I didn't come up with it. I also don't share Paul's belief about the resurrection  - and neither did Jesus. 

40 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Paul actually had a different Christology than the earliest disciples of Jesus. While the disciples held to an adoptionist Christology that held Jesus as human prophet who was adopted as God's son at his resurrection, Paul believed that Jesus was some kind of divine being (probably an angel) who incarnated as a human being, and was rewarded for his faithfulness unto death by being appointed the Son of God at his resurrection. 

Dude, you don't believe a single word of the ancient apostles still exists, how do you assume you know what they believed?

CFR, please. 

[Eschaton]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Wow. You are confronted with solid syntactic and contextual evidence that your interpretation of Paul is mistaken and you don't deal with that...you just dismiss Ware because he belongs to a different school of thought. Don't you dare accuse anybody of "dogmatism" ever again. 

This is disgraceful. 

You shouldn't pretend to be offended when confronted with the poor quality of your sources. Here, here's another high quality source refuting your claims about Paul and the resurrection:

https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-15

"It is sown a natural body and it is raised in a spiritual body," is that what it says? Anybody else have a different translation for those? The problem is the word translated "physical" here is not really the Greek word "physical." There is a Greek word "physical." What they're talking about here is what is sown is as psychic--a body made of psuchos, the Greek word for "soul." What is sown as a "soulish body" is what he's talking about. It's a heavy--it's a denser kind of body, and what is raised is a spiritual body, but whereas in the modern world, we tend to think spiritual is something that's immaterial, spiritual means not matter, it's invisible, it's something that doesn't exist as matter. That's not what pneuma means in the ancient world. In the ancient world pneuma is like--is a stuff, it's like what air is made out of. When the wind blows around that's pneuma, when you take in breath you're taking in a form of pneuma. That Greek word pneuma does refer in the ancient world to some kind of stuff. It doesn't refer to immaterial substance as it does later in Christian theology or in some philosophies. The translation here is misleading because what Paul says is, when your body is put into the ground, when you're dead, what's put in there is sort of a psychic body, it's a body that carries life, sure, because that's what psychic means for--in the ancient Greek world, it's a living body but it is more like something--it's a natural body. It's kind of the body that you're just given naturally. When it's raised it's going to be raised to say a pneumatic body, but now a pneumatic body--so it's not the same thing as it was put in the ground, it's raised a pneumatic body but it's still some kind of stuff."

This is Dale Martin, a major New Testament scholar. He's saying exactly what I've been saying and what Tabor has been saying. 

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Dude, you don't believe a single word of the ancient apostles still exists, how do you assume you know what they believed?

It's not that complicated. Paul quotes the earliest Christology in Romans 1:

“God… promised beforehand… concerning His son, having been born from the seed [lit. ‘sperm’] of David according to the flesh, having been appointed son of God with power according to a spirit of holiness, by resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1.3-4)

This is thought to be an ancient creed, predating Paul. Paul is quoting it. 

Quote

“That this is a pre-Pauline creed that Paul is quoting has seemed clear to scholars for a long time. For one thing, as we have just seen, it is highly structured, without a word wasted, quite unlike how normal prose is typically written and unlike the other statements Paul makes in the context. Moreover, even though the passage is very short, it contains a number of words and ideas that are not found anywhere else in Paul. Nowhere else in the seven undisputed Pauline letters does Paul use the phrase “seed of David”; in fact, nowhere else does he mention that Jesus was a descendant of David (which was requisite, of course, for the earthly messiah). Nowhere else does he use the phrase “Spirit of holiness” (for the Holy Spirit). And nowhere else does he ever talk about Jesus becoming the Son of God at the resurrection. For a short two verses, those are a lot of terms and ideas that differ from Paul. This can best be explained if he is quoting an earlier tradition. Moreover, this earlier tradition has a different view of Christ than the one that Paul explicates elsewhere in his surviving writings. Here, unlike in Paul’s writings, Jesus’s earthly messiahship as a descendant of King David is stressed. Even more striking—as I will emphasize in a moment—the idea that Jesus was made the Son of God precisely at his resurrection is also stressed.” (Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, p.220-221)

This Christology doesn't fit his own. It's an adoptionist Christology (which we also see in Mark, where Jesus is declared son of God at his baptism), while Paul believed that Jesus incarnated at his birth and existed previously as some kind of lesser divine being.

Philippians 2:6–8

"6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,2 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,3 being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." Therefore God exalted him to the highest place  and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,    to the glory of God the Father.

Further reading: https://ehrmanblog.org/adoptionistic-christologies/

 

 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Eschaton

[Eschaton]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Did you not read my response (dated Thursday, January 26) in which I quote James Ware to demonstrate that the phrase soma pneumatikon (translated "spiritual body") does not refer to the composition of the body but rather the enlivening agent thereof? 

Because I have to assume that you haven't, since you don't engage any of the quoted material at all.  Instead, you simply re-assert your position as if nothing has happened. Regrettable, though not for me.

If this is representative of how you engage arguments, then we would have to be fools to take your word for anything. 

This is, of course, assuming Markan priority, which is the clear majority position but not uncontested. I personally lean in the direction of Markan priority, but I have seen arguments for Matthean priority (the Augustinian and de Griesbach hypotheses) which I don't feel comfortable just ruling out. Markan priority seems to be the most likely (as long as you don't fret too much about the theoretical epicycle that is Q, which is necessary for the whole thing to hang together), but it's not cleanly so. Based on the evidence, I'm not so willing to pronounce ex cathedra on these issues, where very little can really be known. 

I'll note that the judgements between these varying theories are all based on what the judger thinks is "most likely" about any given theory. Given that any individual's plausibility structures are contingent on the quirks of their personality, their own experience, and their cultural setting...we don't have grounds to "know" very much.

See this excellent thread by the indomitable Dan Ellsworth: 

 

Lol, the nature of dependency and disagreement in the Synoptics is of an entirely different nature than the alleged dependency between Luke-Acts and Josephus. The Synoptics have frequent recurrences of the exact same phrasing and very similar narrative arcs. When compared, similarity is the rule rather than contradiction. Meanwhile, the only cases of alleged dependency between Luke-Acts and Josephus are merely references to events in the general historical record. The strongest alleged cases of dependency are literally contradictions. The Synoptics are not an analogous case. 

It would be strong evidence if there were actually strong evidence for dependence of Luke-Acts on Josephus. There is not. 

Don't hold up to the scrutiny of their peers, huh? I haven't seen any withering academic criticism of Armstrong, Bernier, or Ware, and their works appear to have been well-received by those academics whose comments I've seen. Just you...and perhaps this anonymous Reddit comment which your response parallels very closely, even including a typo. I must conclude that your response is dependent on it, no? It would be a scandal for the methodology of source-criticism if I were mistaken. 

Some "peer," huh? That said, since I reject credentialism, I'll take up the arguments you put forward one by one. Should be fun. 

On the one hand, that's a fair point. On the other hand, this is an "eye of the beholder" scenario. Personally, I don't hold a preterist interpretation of Christ's Olivet discourse, so this evidence is nonprobative to me. It's not Bernier's only point, though. 

I'm familiar with Zeichmann's argument. I think it fails because a) it depends on Mark being written in Syro-Phoenicia when it could just as easily been written in Rome, and b) Jesus was speaking to Pharisees and Herodians in the temple - the same temple inhabited by moneychangers who processed currency brought by Jewish pilgrims from across the empire. The temple was a major financial center. The availability of a denarius in that specific circumstance is quite a bit higher than in Galilee, and thus one could likely be found were Jesus to request one specifically...which He did. The concept of a ruler's face being on coinage was ubiquitous in the ancient Near East, I don't think anybody would have struggled to understand even if they didn't have much local denarii circulation.

It's pretty easy to see when you realize that Rome had a substantial Jewish population. This is well known. Paul interacts with them in Acts 28:17-29. The Christian community in Rome had significant Judaic influence, as evidenced by Paul's need to contend against the Law of Moses in the Epistle to the Romans. 

Plus there doesn't need to be much of a Christian community for Mark to be there writing in the first place.

Lol he definitely does not, I just skimmed the entire Gospel of Mark. Are you referring to the "abomination of desolation" by chance? You know that is susceptible to multiple interpretations. Why so conclusive?

Now this argument is interesting, but only matters if you assume Markan priority, which I'm not entirely sold on. Furthermore, it's reasonable that Mark would want to spare Matthew the stain of having been a publican, refraining from naming him as a courtesy. Jesus gave Semitic nicknames to 3 of His disciples (Simon/Cephas, James & John/Boanerges), and you also have the apostle "Lebbaeus surnamed Thaddeaus", Joseph Barnabas (Paul's missionary companion) and John Mark. Second names aren't that odd. If Matthew chose to identify himself as the Levi in question, it would make sense to do so using the same formula as Mark. Particularly when one is a religiously informed Jew and familiar with the nature of biblical quotation and restatement, as Matthew obviously is. Not to mention that the point of Matthew is to set forward an account of Jesus' life, not an autobiography. I agree with Bernier that the evidence is ambiguous here, not a knock-down argument against Matthean authorship as you claim. 

Furthermore, I'll note that you have reproduced an error which Reddit user 634425 makes - Matthew's self-identification with Levi is only a "problem" for Matthew if Mark comes first. Therefore that parenthetical comment should read "on the supposition of Markan priority."  

No such point has been made. You haven't engaged with Armstrong's Dating Acts at all. You haven't engaged with Bernier's actual methodology in the slightest. That's forgiveable because you can't be expected to have copies of their works at hand. What is not forgiveable is presuming, as you do, that the case is already closed when in fact the debate is open, as I sought to prove. You have approached @InCognitus and myself from a position of presumed superiority, announcing your verdicts ex cathedra and reducing a complicated and open-ended field of study into rhetorically convenient conclusions for yourself. When confronted, you have either ignored counterarguments (Ware's response) or taken potshots copied from a Reddit comment in order to handwave away Bernier's credibility. To this I have only one response:

 

Posting memes and fringe scholarship isn't quite engaging seriously with the topic in the way you pretend. In any case, much of this is responded to in in my previous post. 

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

You shouldn't pretend to be offended when confronted with the poor quality of your sources. Here, here's another high quality source refuting your claims about Paul and the resurrection:

https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-15

"It is sown a natural body and it is raised in a spiritual body," is that what it says? Anybody else have a different translation for those? The problem is the word translated "physical" here is not really the Greek word "physical." There is a Greek word "physical." What they're talking about here is what is sown is as psychic--a body made of psuchos, the Greek word for "soul." What is sown as a "soulish body" is what he's talking about. It's a heavy--it's a denser kind of body, and what is raised is a spiritual body, but whereas in the modern world, we tend to think spiritual is something that's immaterial, spiritual means not matter, it's invisible, it's something that doesn't exist as matter. That's not what pneuma means in the ancient world. In the ancient world pneuma is like--is a stuff, it's like what air is made out of. When the wind blows around that's pneuma, when you take in breath you're taking in a form of pneuma. That Greek word pneuma does refer in the ancient world to some kind of stuff. It doesn't refer to immaterial substance as it does later in Christian theology or in some philosophies. The translation here is misleading because what Paul says is, when your body is put into the ground, when you're dead, what's put in there is sort of a psychic body, it's a body that carries life, sure, because that's what psychic means for--in the ancient Greek world, it's a living body but it is more like something--it's a natural body. It's kind of the body that you're just given naturally. When it's raised it's going to be raised to say a pneumatic body, but now a pneumatic body--so it's not the same thing as it was put in the ground, it's raised a pneumatic body but it's still some kind of stuff."

This is Dale Martin, a major New Testament scholar. He's saying exactly what I've been saying and what Tabor has been saying. 

I'd encourage you to go back and read Ware again, because he specifically cites Martin as a source he's refuting. 

Never mind, don't bother, I will reproduce the relevant passage from Ware:

Quote

2. The understanding of the sōma pneumatikon as involving a “body composed of pneuma,” distinct in substance from the earthly body, also ignores the actual lexical meaning and usage, in Paul and in the wider ancient world, of the key terms in question. This view is thus routinely bedeviled by the gratuitous assumption that the contrast Paul draws in 15:44 is that of flesh and spirit. Paula Fredriksen, for example, understands Paul to assert that “the Christian’s fleshly body, whether living or dead, will be transformed, like Christ’s, into a spiritual body.” However, the adjective that Paul here contrasts with πνευματικός is not σάρκινος (cognate with σάρξ), referring to the flesh, but ψυχικός (cognate with ψυχή), referring to the soul. This adjective is used in texts outside the NT, without exception, with reference to the properties or activities of the soul. Modifying σῶμα as here, with reference to the present body, the adjective describes this body as given life or activity by the soul. The adjective has nothing to do with the body’s composition but denotes the source of the mortal body’s life and activity.

The meaning of the paired adjective ψυχικός in 15:44 is extremely significant, for it reveals that the exegesis of Engberg-Pedersen, Martin, and Asher involves a fundamental misunderstanding of the passage. For if (as these interpreters suggest) σῶμα πνευματικόν in this context describes the composition of the future body, as a body composed only of spirit, its correlate σῶμα ψυχικόν would perforce describe the composition of the present body, as a body composed only of soul. Paul would assert the absence of flesh and bones not only from the risen body but from the present mortal body as well! The impossibility that ψυχικός here refers to the body’s composition rules out the notion that its correlated adjective πνευματικός refers to the body’s composition. Contrasted with ψυχικός, the adjective πνευματικός must similarly refer to the source of the body’s life and activity, describing the risen body as given life by the Spirit.

3. The mode of existence described by the adjective πνευματικός is further clarified by the larger context of the letter, for the contrasted pair of adjectives ψυχικός/πνευματικός is crucially foreshadowed earlier in the epistle. In 1 Cor 2:14– 15 ὁ ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος is contrasted with ὁ πνευματικὸς [ἄνθρωπος]. In this passage the contrast is clearly not between a person composed of flesh and blood and a person composed of celestial spirit or pneuma. Rather, ὁ ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος is the person who possesses only the natural life of the soul (ψυχή) and is bereft of the Holy Spirit, in contrast with ὁ πνευματικὸς [ἄνθρωπος], the person possessing and transformed by the Spirit of God (τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ, 2:11–12). Similarly elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, the adjective πνευματικός is uniformly used with reference to persons or things enlivened, empowered, or transformed by the Spirit of God, including flesh-and-blood human beings (2:15; 3:1; 14:37), edible manna and water (10:3–4), and a very palpable rock (10:4). Paul’s use of this adjective in 10:3–4 with reference to the manna and water miraculously provided in the exodus is especially illuminating, for in these verses the adjective is used with reference to earthly, palpable substances of gross (not fine or ethereal) matter, clearly indicating not their composition but that they are given by the power of the Spirit. The adjective πνευματικός in Paul simply never means “composed of celestial pneuma,” and such a concept is entirely foreign to his thought (see point 4 immediately below). Rather, this adjective in Paul always has in view the power and activity of the Spirit of God. Used with σῶμα in 15:44, the adjective πνευματικός indicates that the risen body will be given life and empowered by God’s Spirit.

Dale Martin is already rebutted here. I notice nothing in your response about Ware's point that, in order to interpret soma pneumatikon as describing composition, one would also have to argue that flesh-and-blood human beings, edible manna and water, and a rock are also "made of pneuma." It's not about composition at all. 

So much for my sources being bad, lol. 

Now, I see that you have quoted Bart Ehrman in order to establish an early low Christology. That is one of Ehrman's favorite theories.

First, I'll note that you have quoted the NIV translation of Romans 1:3-4, but the ESV and NRSV have "declared" in place of "appointed." In which case the passage reads "the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord." Rather changes the meaning, doesn't it?

Second, Michael Bird has written a whole monograph questioning this pet theory of Ehrman's, Jesus the Eternal Son: Answering Adoptionist Christology (2017). A very useful blog series summarizing the book chapter-by-chapter can be started here. Allow me to draw out the passages regarding Romans.

Quote

Indeed, several scholars have argued over the year that this text was an early Christian adoptionist creed that Paul took and tried to adjust toward an incarnational reading. As Bird notes, however, there are several problems with such a thesis. First and foremost is that early Christian creedal formulations in the NT were not exhaustive in their construction. Rather, they were, “abbreviated confessions of faith, succinct to a point but ultimately insufficient, functioning as a symbols and signs of a wider body of beliefs” (p. 12). Such creedal formulations, while precursors to later confessions like those of Nicea and Chalcedon, were not themselves full-bore, exhaustive confessions. In the context of an oral-aural culture, where documents such as Romans would have been surrogates for the spoken word, these abbreviated creedal formulations would have served to signal hearers to a wider thought-world of belief.

The takeaway from all of this is that it is spurious to say that slightly differing creedal formulations in the NT represent various and opposing Christologies. As Bird notes: "They [the early creedal formulas] are not comprehensive in their affirmations and they make no denials. They are, in other words, the ancient equivalent of a doctrinal bumper sticker or the condensing of a complex theological topic into a single message. So we should not assume that these densely packed sentences were the totality of what people believed about Jesus, or that early Christians were disinterested or even opposed to anything else that might be said about Jesus. The early Christological formulas in the New Testament do not reflect the remnants of independent Christologies but rather signal efforts to articulate convictions shared among various Christian groups…In other words, no scholar can truly say with confidence: This is what they first believed, and this all that they believed! (pp. 12-13)"

This of course means that we cannot look at a text like Rom. 1:3-4 and say definitively that it implies an early adoptionist Chrisology.

With methodological step out of the way, Bird moves on to addressing text itself. Bird first examines how, in both OT and Second Temple texts, both the designations “Son/Seed/Descendant of David,” and “Son of God” are both applied within Messianic contexts. In this context, divine sonship is already “embedded in the designation of Jesus as the Davidic descendant prior to his resurrection” (16). If this is the case, that means that appointing of Jesus to be Son of God “in power” (en dynamei) was most likely not a change in Jesus’s ontological status (e.g., from not-Son-of-God to Son of God) but rather a “enhancing” or “upgrading” of Jesus’s preexisting divine sonship (16)

Bird strengthens this assessment by arguing against the thesis that Paul inserted the “in power” (en dynamei) on both internal and external grounds.  Internally, it would make little sense for Paul to use and add to what he knew to be an adoptionist formulation to support his incarnationalist Christology (18). Externally, there is no real textual evidence or evidence in the reception history of the text to support the idea that “in power” was a later Pauline addition. Rather, proponents of theory come with a presupposition that adoptionism was earliest Christology, and have to find a way to get around contrary evidence (19-23). While Bird’s arguments are much more detailed than I can do justice to here, his concluding point is quite clear: Rom. 1:3-4 and the God’s appointing of Jesus to be “Son of God in power” are almost certainly not adoptionist in nature. Instead, it refers to a transition from one mode of divine sonship to another. To quote Bird: "To sum up, according to Rom 1:3-4, the resurrection marks a transition from Jesus’s messianic mode and earthly abode of divine sonship, to a new display of divine sonship defined by a regal function exercised from his heavenly position as God’s vice-regent…To be even more concise about it, Jesus’s divine sonship is transposed rather than triggered by resurrection, as he transitions from a Davidic Son of God to the Son of God in power who reigns on the Father’s behalf and intercedes for his followers (23)."

Biblical scholar Larry Hurtado, as quoted by Ben Witherington here, drops another bomb:

Quote

And that brings us to Romans 1:3-4, the Pauline text to which appeal is sometime made. But, here again, it bears noting that the text says nothing about adoption. It portrays Jesus as born from “the seed of David,” and “declared/affirmed [horisthentos] the son of God in power” at his resurrection (presented here as the first to experience the general resurrection “of the dead”). The term, horisthentos, is a form of a verb used variously to refer to separating or designating something or someone (for some special use or significance), but never for adoption. Further, the emphasis in the statement appears to be that as of Jesus’ resurrection he is thereafter the son of God “in power,” which likely refers to the well-known belief that Jesus’ resurrection involved at his exaltation to function as God’s plenipotentiary.

It is sometimes claimed, however, that the belief in Jesus as adopted divine Son was initial and early, but was then superseded by belief in his “pre-existence,” such as is reflected already in Paul’s letters, written ca. 50 AD and thereafter. Anything is possible, of course. But this supersession would have to have been very early, and any “adoption-christology” rather short-lived. For, by common scholarly consent, Paul underwent his “revelation of God’s Son” within a couple of years at most after Jesus’ crucifixion. And, moreover, by common scholarly judgement he was initiated into a Jesus-movement that already held the basic christological convictions that are reflected in his letters (e.g., that Jesus had been glorified and given a status second only to God, and that in some manner he was already “there” from, and the agent of, creation). Indeed, I suspect that he was reacting against such convictions in his previous opposition to the Jesus-movement. So, in any case, if there was an early adoption-christology, it would have been very short-lived, and, it appears, it left scant explicit trace or impact. It would have been an abortive non-starter. So, certainly as far as Paul knew (and he did get around quite a lot!), whether in Jerusalem or his own assemblies, Jesus was reverenced similarly as designated “Lord”, not as adopted Son.

To be sure, the powerful ignition factors in the explosive development of early Jesus-devotion included particularly the experiences of the risen and exalted Jesus. In that sense, Ehrman is correct to refer to an early “exaltation” view of Jesus, as having been given a new place of unique status “at the right hand” of God. But, by all indications, the view that Jesus was exalted to a new status/role by God (e.g., Philippians 2:9-11) went fully hand-in-hand with beliefs that Jesus was God’s “Son” by right all along, so to speak, with no adoption involved. To appeal to an ancient practice for rough comparison, when an ancient king elevated a son to the position of co-regent and successor, this wasn’t an adoption. It was the conferral of a new status, to be sure, but the person didn’t thereby become a son. He was already a son, who was designated with a new explicit role, and obedience to the reigning king required that this designated son be acknowledged and honoured by the king’s loyal subjects also. Just so, earliest Jesus-followers stressed that God had exalted his Son, given him divine glory and “the name above all names,” and now required him to be reverenced appropriately.

Secondly, the very category of "adoptionism" has been persuasively critiqued as an anachronism. The whole category of adoptionism basically only exists in contrast to later Nicene theology. In the first three centuries you get an explosion of variant Christologies both low and high, but they have very little in common. There's almost nothing that unites them except for their differences from later incarnational or Nicene Christology, and so they get lumped together as adoptionist. Diverse theologies of Jesus are put together when, in their own time, they would not have seen each other as similar. And it is against that anachronistic background that New Testament verses are interpreted as adoptionist when in reality they are part of a far more diverse web of metaphorical rhetoric which is consistent with high Christology. Now, to be clear: there were absolutely figures who argued that Jesus was a normal human who in some sense became the Son of God. These figures all argue different things and are in no sense unified, and therefore no "adoptionist school" can be argued to exist. This weakens the case for reading New Testament passages as "adoptionist" and opens them up to a broader perspective of interpretation. 

Try these on for size: 

Jeremiah Coogan, Rethinking adoptionism: an argument for dismantling a dubious category

Quote

I survey the evidence for second- and third-century figures and texts often identified as advocating an adoptionist christology, demonstrating the diverse ways that language of adoption and sonship functions within these accounts. I focus on these second- and third-century examples rather than on the New Testament texts that frequently take centre-stage because the assumption of adoptionism as a coherent and well-attested theology in the second and third centuries provides the plausibility structure for readings of New Testament texts as adoptionist. Without second- and third-century adoptionism, first-century (i.e. ‘biblical’) adoptionism vanishes. Not only are adoptionists absent from the available historical evidence, but early Christian metaphors of adoption and divine filiation functioned within diverse articulations of Jesus’ identity.

Peter Ben-Smit, The end of early Christian adoptionism? A note on the invention of adoptionism, its sources, and its current demise

Quote

Having considered the evidence for adoptionism according to its classical definition in the patristic period up to the fourth century (including later witnesses to authors from that era) and having found none, it also becomes inviting to reconsider the New Testament texts that have often been read in connection with this, presumed, early Christian christological position. A number of New Testament texts, namely, are often interpreted with reference to early (Jewish) Christian adoptionism; this concerns specifically Rom. 1:3–4, Acts 2:36 (and 13:32), as well as the accounts of Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan and the transfiguration. While much can be said exegetically about any of these texts – and certainly is being said – the above discussion may have complicated things somewhat hermeneutically. This is to say two things: (a) the observation that there is no such thing as an ‘adoptionist’ tradition in early Christianity makes it impossible, or at least very hard, to present New Testament texts as part of such a tradition or to interpret them with reference to them; (b) the various ways of thinking about the relationship between God (the Father), the divine logos, Jesus’ birth, the titles Christ and Son of God, make matters more complicated.

Additional works critiquing Ehrman's approach to adoptionism: Larry Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity and Chris Tilling's Paul's Divine Christology, not to mention Michael F. Bird (ed.) How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature - A Response to Bart Ehrman.

As I have been saying all along, the field is contested. 

I'm afraid, my dear @Eschaton, that if you think I have merely been "posting memes and fringe scholarship", your good opinion is not worth having. Given that you seem to think that anything which disagrees with Bart Ehrman is "fringe", your judgement in this matter is dubious.

Edited January 31, 2023 by OGHoosier

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

This Christology doesn't fit his own. It's an adoptionist Christology (which we also see in Mark, where Jesus is declared son of God at his baptism), while Paul believed that Jesus incarnated at his birth and existed previously as some kind of lesser divine being.

Philippians 2:6–8

"6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,2 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,3 being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." Therefore God exalted him to the highest place  and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,    to the glory of God the Father.

Further reading: https://ehrmanblog.org/adoptionistic-christologies/

I have a paper to work on tonight and will have to revisit your allegations about Mark later. But I first want to note that you quote Philippians, an authentic Pauline epistle. And yet weren't you telling me just a moment ago that Paul's own Christology is incarnational? I mean, I agree, but why are you trotting Philippians out to argue for adoptionism? Please advise because I can't tell what the point is supposed to be.

[Orthodox Christian]

On 12/16/2022 at 7:04 PM, 3DOP said:

have heard this same complaint about our "undefined God" multiple times over the years here. I have come to believe that it is an unreasonable expectation to hope that God will define Himself fully to anyone before the times spoken of by Sts. John and Paul the Apostles. Speaking of the mystery of the Eucharist in his massive work, The Mysteries of Christianity, Fr. Matthias Scheeben repeats with the Apostles what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the present condition and what remains to be revealed:

"Partaking of the Eucharist is, let us repeat, but the figure and pledge of the promised enjoyment of the divinity. The Eucharist is, as it were, the milk in which the divine food is adapted to our present powers of reception; some day it will be given to us in all its greatness."  

---Fr. Mattias Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, MO, (1947), p. 527

I sincerely thank you Teddy for your remarks and hope that you might be able to appreciate some of my objections to your evaluation of the seeming poverty of Catholic mysteries. Yup. We know almost nothing

God, when asked who he was said I Am, that's it, He is all in all, totally the Other in comparison to His creation. He is Love, manifested in Christ, He is beyond any further definition, our minds simply can't do it.

[theplains]

43 minutes ago, Orthodox Christian said:

God, when asked who he was said I Am, that's it, He is all in all, totally the Other in comparison to His creation.

He also said, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: 
that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no 
God formed, neither shall there be after me".

[Orthodox Christian]

43 minutes ago, theplains said:

He also said, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: 
that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no 
God formed, neither shall there be after me".

Yep

[Eschaton]

On 1/30/2023 at 7:43 PM, OGHoosier said:

I have a paper to work on tonight and will have to revisit your allegations about Mark later. But I first want to note that you quote Philippians, an authentic Pauline epistle. And yet weren't you telling me just a moment ago that Paul's own Christology is incarnational? I mean, I agree, but why are you trotting Philippians out to argue for adoptionism? Please advise because I can't tell what the point is supposed to be.

Paul's stance was that Jesus existed prior to his birth as some kind of lesser divine being (Ehrman would argue as an angel, which I think is appropriate as that would be the only category available that fits), who incarnated as a human being, was obedient to God even unto allowing himself to be executed. Because of that obedience, God not only raised Jesus from the dead but greatly exalted him, making him Lord of all, giving Jesus the authority and name of God. 

[Eschaton]

On 1/30/2023 at 7:39 PM, OGHoosier said:

I'd encourage you to go back and read Ware again, because he specifically cites Martin as a source he's refuting. 

Never mind, don't bother, I will reproduce the relevant passage from Ware:

Dale Martin is already rebutted here. I notice nothing in your response about Ware's point that, in order to interpret soma pneumatikon as describing composition, one would also have to argue that flesh-and-blood human beings, edible manna and water, and a rock are also "made of pneuma." It's not about composition at all. 

So much for my sources being bad, lol. 

Now, I see that you have quoted Bart Ehrman in order to establish an early low Christology. That is one of Ehrman's favorite theories.

First, I'll note that you have quoted the NIV translation of Romans 1:3-4, but the ESV and NRSV have "declared" in place of "appointed." In which case the passage reads "the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord." Rather changes the meaning, doesn't it?

Second, Michael Bird has written a whole monograph questioning this pet theory of Ehrman's, Jesus the Eternal Son: Answering Adoptionist Christology (2017). A very useful blog series summarizing the book chapter-by-chapter can be started here. Allow me to draw out the passages regarding Romans.

Biblical scholar Larry Hurtado, as quoted by Ben Witherington here, drops another bomb:

Secondly, the very category of "adoptionism" has been persuasively critiqued as an anachronism. The whole category of adoptionism basically only exists in contrast to later Nicene theology. In the first three centuries you get an explosion of variant Christologies both low and high, but they have very little in common. There's almost nothing that unites them except for their differences from later incarnational or Nicene Christology, and so they get lumped together as adoptionist. Diverse theologies of Jesus are put together when, in their own time, they would not have seen each other as similar. And it is against that anachronistic background that New Testament verses are interpreted as adoptionist when in reality they are part of a far more diverse web of metaphorical rhetoric which is consistent with high Christology. Now, to be clear: there were absolutely figures who argued that Jesus was a normal human who in some sense became the Son of God. These figures all argue different things and are in no sense unified, and therefore no "adoptionist school" can be argued to exist. This weakens the case for reading New Testament passages as "adoptionist" and opens them up to a broader perspective of interpretation. 

Try these on for size: 

Jeremiah Coogan, Rethinking adoptionism: an argument for dismantling a dubious category

Peter Ben-Smit, The end of early Christian adoptionism? A note on the invention of adoptionism, its sources, and its current demise

Additional works critiquing Ehrman's approach to adoptionism: Larry Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity and Chris Tilling's Paul's Divine Christology, not to mention Michael F. Bird (ed.) How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature - A Response to Bart Ehrman.

As I have been saying all along, the field is contested. 

I'm afraid, my dear @Eschaton, that if you think I have merely been "posting memes and fringe scholarship", your good opinion is not worth having. Given that you seem to think that anything which disagrees with Bart Ehrman is "fringe", your judgement in this matter is dubious.

I'm relying on major scholars and you are relying on minor and fringe scholars. That doesn't make me right and you wrong, but that certainly raises the question about why you seem to be cherry picking scholarship outlier scholarship. Is it because it supports a pre-determined theological view that you hold? 

I'll just say this in regards to Ware's argument:

"The adjective has nothing to do with the body’s composition but denotes the source of the mortal body’s life and activity."

This claim again does not address Paul's clear statement that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." Indicating that "spirit body" is indeed indicative of the composition of the transfigured, resurrected body.  And indeed, the thrust of Ware's grammatical arguments seem to be in the service of trying to establish an empty tomb, an obsession of conservative scholars and apologists. 

I don't quote Ehrman to say that he's leading edge or particularly brilliant. He's not. He's boringly mainstream and middle of the road on most issues. He's a useful source in quickly communicating mainstream academic positions (on most topics, anyway). 

I myself am not a scholar, and I find it most useful to stick with major scholars representing the largest consensus. Usually people who prefer minor scholars representing an outlier view are doing so because of some predetermined theological bias.  

Edited February 1, 2023 by Eschaton

[OGHoosier]

34 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

I'm relying on major scholars and you are relying on minor and fringe scholars. That doesn't make me right and you wrong, but that certainly raises the question about why you seem to be cherry picking scholarship outlier scholarship. Is it because it supports a pre-determined theological view that you hold? 

Hahah, what makes a scholar "major" as opposed to "minor and fringe"? Amount of podcasts they're invited to or speeches which they're invited to give to their ideological compatriots? Volume of words published perhaps? None of which should count nearly as much as their arguments. You gotta stop relying on reputations to do your arguing for you. 

And you have a habit of dismissing scholars even before you evaluate their arguments just because you see them as "apologists", so trying to wave me off with a charge of bias just won't work coming from you.

46 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Paul's stance was that Jesus existed prior to his birth as some kind of lesser divine being (Ehrman would argue as an angel, which I think is appropriate as that would be the only category available that fits), who incarnated as a human being, was obedient to God even unto allowing himself to be executed. Because of that obedience, God not only raised Jesus from the dead but greatly exalted him, making him Lord of all, giving Jesus the authority and name of God. 

You've lost any right to be believed. Prove it or else. Just saying "Ehrman says so" doesn't do it. 

Besides, that same scripture (Philippians 2:6-8) which you quoted, has Christ in the form of God even before His birth. So, uh...doesn't sound like a lesser divine being to me. We can play these interpretive games all day. 

34 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

I'll just say this in regards to Ware's argument:

"The adjective has nothing to do with the body’s composition but denotes the source of the mortal body’s life and activity."

This claim again does not address Paul's clear statement that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." Indicating that "spirit body" is indeed indicative of the composition of the transfigured, resurrected body.  And indeed, the thrust of Ware's grammatical arguments seem to be in the service of trying to establish an empty tomb, an obsession of conservative scholars and apologists. 

A) He's not writing about the empty tomb. The paper is titled "Paul's Understanding of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:36-54." 

B) It doesn't need to address the statement because Paul is clearly using "flesh and blood" as a synonym for "perishable." In fact, brutely asserting that that one phrase means the body must be replaced by "wind" is a gross wresting of the text. The fact that Paul does not say the body will become composed of spirit (as Ware has demonstrated) indicates that "flesh and blood" is a colloquial term for corrupt, perishable, or mortal. You are engaging in eisegesis, thinking that every phrase is about the composition of the body when Paul didn't use it that way. I should note also that the term "flesh AND blood" is inclusive, so "flesh" is not ruled out of the kingdom of heaven.

54 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

I don't quote Ehrman to say that he's leading edge or particularly brilliant. He's not. He's boringly mainstream and middle of the road on most issues. He's a useful source in quickly communicating mainstream academic positions (on most topics, anyway). 

I myself am not a scholar, and I find it most useful to stick with major scholars representing the largest consensus. Usually people who prefer minor scholars representing an outlier view are doing so because of some predetermined theological bias. 

Congratulations, you have engaged in the Golden Mean Fallacy. Besides, Ehrman definitely is not middle of the road on most issues. There really isn't a middle of the road on these issues. 

I shall show you a secret: scholars are just people, and their arguments are meant to be examined, not taken on authority like you seem to do. Because I don't see you actually comparing arguments, I see you dropping names and making assertions whose only support is the dropped name. The value of the dropped name diminishes dramatically when there is actual disagreement in the field though; their word cannot simply be taken for good. You have minimized this by simply asserting that scholars who disagree with your name-drops aren't actual peers; you dismiss them as "fringe" or "minor". That's not gonna work, because you are dismissing them based on the conclusions they reach, not their reasoning or methods (with which you don't appear to be familiar). That's question-begging and circular, and I'm not gonna fall for that. 

[Nevo]

Oh, you guys haven't seen anything yet. My scholars are going to rain down death blows on your scholars!

[OGHoosier]

22 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Oh, you guys haven't seen anything yet. My scholars are going to rain down death blows on your scholars!

Wait...what is that...BY GEORGE, IT'S N.T. WRIGHT WITH A STEEL CHAIR!

[theplains]

On 1/21/2023 at 12:42 AM, InCognitus said:

The promise of sitting with God in his throne comes to those who “overcome”, which is a future promise following the resurrection. 

And John lays out all the breadcrumbs leading to godhood:

Being a “son of God” makes one equal to God (John 5:17-18).

Romans 8:12-17 mentions the following:

"Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.  For if ye live after the flesh,
ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are
led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to
fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth
witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs
with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together".

Since you believe that a "son of God" make one equal to God (or a Goddess in the case of a female), then
do you also believe only those led by the Sprit of God are the sons of God and the non-exalted beings are
not led by the Spirit of God because they are living after the flesh?

Edited February 10, 2023 by theplains

[InCognitus]

On 2/10/2023 at 10:36 AM, theplains said:

Since you believe that a "son of God" make one equal to God (or a Goddess in the case of a female),

In my post I didn't really say that I believe that being a "Son of God" makes one equal to God.  The context of our discussion was about what the first century Jews and Christians believed, and they believed that being a "son of God" makes one equal to God, as is noted by my reference to John 5:17-18 (i.e. "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.")

I believe that the "sons of God" are those who enter into a covenant with God and participate in his family and honor their covenants and endure to the end.  And this is an important distinction and a condition of being sons of God that is made evident in the verses that you quoted (as I will explain below).

On 2/10/2023 at 10:36 AM, theplains said:

then
do you also believe only those led by the Sprit of God are the sons of God and the non-exalted beings are
not led by the Spirit of God because they are living after the flesh?

The verses you quoted from Romans 8:12-17 explain what being led by the Spirit of God entails, and they also explain that being sons of God is conditional upon the person's behavior:

Quote

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.  

Paul also explained the conditions of being sons of God in Philippians 2:12–16:

Quote

12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings:
15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.

So, to answer your question, according to Paul, those who are exalted (receiving everlasting life) are led by the Spirit of God (meaning they follow the Spirit) and they put off the works of the flesh and endure to the end.  Those who are not exalted may be or may have been influenced by the Spirit of God from time to time, but they don't let the Spirit of God lead them constantly throughout their life in what they do.  The Spirit of God doesn't rule their life.