Sunday, June 13, 2010

How To Become God

The central and enduring puzzle of Christian origins is how Jesus came to be viewed as (a) god. According to the traditional story, he declared himself to be God, and his followers believed him because of the miracles he performed. But declarations of that sort are only found in one Gospel (John's), and it is hard to believe that the other writers would have left out such an important point. Therefore, New Testament scholars conclude that Jesus made no such declarations - they were added on at a later time by followers who already believed Jesus was divine. If Jesus's first followers were, in fact, monotheistic Jews, it's hard to see how such an apparently non-monotheistic belief as the Trinity could arise.

There is an obvious solution to this problem that goes like this: Jesus's followers did not think of him as divine - they thought of him as a (special) man. As Christianity spread into the Greek world, new converts from pagan backgrounds imported polytheistic concepts into the religion. Later theologians reconciled these ideas with Jewish monotheism by inventing the Trinity.

This is a rather attractive hypothesis because it explains such a wide variety of mysteries about early Christianity: not just ideas about Jesus, but also Christian rituals like baptism and the Eucharist (or Lord's supper) can be seen as deriving from similar pagan practices. Atheists and other critics of Christianity who run across this idea often find it extremely attractive - what better put-down for Christian proseletizers than to respond, "Your whole religion is stolen from paganism!" They create websites and write books proclaiming their discoveries. Unfortunately, the hypothesis is almost completely false.

The pagan origins hypothesis has been around a long time - more than 100 years, in fact. It was popular among a group of scholars known as the "History of Religions School," because they sought the origin of Christianity in its connections to other religions.These scholars made many important contributions to our understanding of Christian origins. But, over the course of the past century, scholarship has swung back in the other direction. Important new discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library, have changed our picture of ancient Judaism as well as of early Christianity. Many now see features previously thought to derive from paganism as coming from Judaism, albeit a Judaism that was already strongly influenced by the surrounding Greek culture. So, modern proponents of the pagan origins hypothesis are about 100 years out of date.

But how, then, did Jesus come to be seen as a god? As we saw in the last few posts, there was considerable room in "monotheistic" Judaism for belief in various supernatural entities apart from God. Among these we sometimes encounter a figure who acts on God's behalf, as a sort of ambassador or political agent of God. In Roman times, the ruler could not be present in all parts of his realm, and communication was slow. The only way to rule was by proxies who could travel in the emperor's place, and whose word was accepted as the word of the emperor. In various Jewish texts written around the time of Jesus, there are references to such a figure who could speak for God, bear God's name, even sit on God's throne. This figure is given a variety of names - the Great Angel, Metatron, the Logos (Word). The first-century AD Jewish writer, Philo, describes him this way:

God’s First Born, the Logos, who holds the eldership among the angels, their ruler as it were. And many names are his, for he is called “the Beginning,” and the Name of God and his Logos and the Man after his Image… (Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues 146)

Christians took all these terms and applied them to Jesus. A particularly important concept was Jesus as the Wisdom of God:

...Christ who is both the Power of God
and the Wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:24)

As the Wisdom of God, Jesus could be from God, indeed even be a part of God, without taking God's place. And as God's agent-ambassador, he could speak for God without usurping God's place in Jewish monolatry.

Careful analysis of the New Testament texts indicates that it was a Jewish ladder, not a pagan one, that Jesus climbed to become part of the Trinity.(For more details on all of this, take a look at my essay, Promoted to God.) This is not to deny that, at times, Christian beliefs might have been influenced directly or indirectly by pagan religious and philosophical ideas - they certainly were. But the main lines of development of ideas about Jesus come straight out of contemporary Judaism.

If religion teaches us atheists one thing, it should be this: to be skeptical of claims that we want to believe. Some atheists seem to have fallen into the trap of believing in a pagan origin for Christianity because it suits their agenda, rather than on the basis of the evidence. We should instead be careful about all claims, until they are established on the basis of actual data and methodical scholarship.

16 comments:

  1. 'As the Wisdom of God, Jesus could be from God, indeed even be a part of God, without taking God's place'

    I see Jesus could be a part of God, and 1st century Jews who claimed that a crucified criminal had been part of God would not be stoned on the spot for blasphemy...

    'Many now see features previously thought to derive from paganism as coming from Judaism, albeit a Judaism that was already strongly influenced by the surrounding Greek culture.'

    So Christianity did not come from paganism. It came from Judaism, which was strongly influenced by pagan culture.

    'In Roman times, the ruler could not be present in all parts of his realm, and communication was slow. The only way to rule was by proxies who could travel in the emperor's place, and whose word was accepted as the word of the emperor.'

    So no trace of pagan influence on Christian thought there, they were just using an analogy of God to the Roman Emperor.

    'Eucharist (or Lord's supper) can be seen as deriving from similar pagan practices.'

    Don't people know there is nothing more Jewish than symbolically drinking somebody's blood and symbolically eating their flesh?

    As for baptism, immersion in water as part of a ritual for cleansing of sins is as Jewish as the Ganges.

    But many atheists don't know that, and claim baptism has a pagan influence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steven, your excessive use of irony makes it rather difficult to understand what point you are trying to make. You seem to think I'm denying any kind of pagan influence on Christianity. If you read any of my stuff carefully, you will see that that's not the case at all.

    Re "part of God": since there are Jewish writings that use the names of God to refer to various figures (Melchizedek, Enoch, Metatron), it follows that not all Jews considered such usage blasphemous. Applying these terms to a crucified criminal was, indeed, a problem for many Jews.

    Re "So Christianity did not come from paganism. It came from Judaism, which was strongly influenced by pagan culture."

    Yes, that's what I said. Your point?

    Re using emperor as a model: Jews, of course, had their own rulers and ambassadors during the times they had control of their nation. But this may indeed be a case where pagan influence is relevant. Luke, for instance, uses terms for Jesus that were usually applied to the Roman emperor (Savior, Prince of Peace, etc.)

    Re Eucharist: I'm working on a post on this. Stay tuned.

    Re baptism: The Old Testament prescribes washing for various purposes. At Qumran there were requirements for bathing before joining the community. John the Baptist was Jewish. So immersion in water for cleansing of sins was unquestionably Jewish. (I hope to get to this one, too, but it will probably be a while.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why does one want to spirtualize what the natural/political world acknowledges in the Diplomatic jobs in the State Department? (Unless, the Church has a vested interest in such spiritualization....)

    ReplyDelete
  4. You might be interested in a site about paganism that includes some information on the historical relationship between Paganism and Christianity. In particular the page on Pagan Saints:
    pierce.yolasite.com/pagansaints or http://pierce.yolasite.com/pagansaints (whichever one works).

    Slag310

    ReplyDelete
  5. 'Unfortunately, the hypothesis is almost completely false'

    So the idea that Christianity borrowed from paganism is 100% true, rather than being 'almost completely false'

    What exactly was the point of your post? I don't get it.

    Where did Heaven and Hell come from if not Zoroastrianism?

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ Angie: I don't understand your point.

    @ Slag310: That site has no references and some pretty dubious claims:

    "Demeter is a goddess of many festivals but most important, the Thesmophoria, which fell in late October. She became St. Demetrios, a masculine warrior saint, whose fd. is 10/26."

    What does Demeter, a grain goddess who represents the agricultural cycle, have to do with a male warrior, other than a similar name?

    I don't see any meat there.

    @ Steve: OK, let me try one more time: The path that Jesus followed to godhood can be traced fairly well, and it follows primarily the Jewish concepts of divine agents. It does NOT show indications of direct borrowing of a pagan god-man myth (whatever is meant by that).

    Heaven and Hell: Yes, Zoroastrianism, as well as Greek religion. See

    http://earlychristianreligion.org/satanFrames.htm

    ReplyDelete
  7. ' It does NOT show indications of direct borrowing of a pagan god-man myth'

    So indirect borrowing.

    And as Heaven and Hell came from a pagan religion, what is the point of emphatic claims that Christianity did not originate in paganism?

    Philippians 2 says Jesus was in very nature god, not just an agent of god.

    Paul does not have a Jesus who is an agent of god.

    'And as God's agent-ambassador, he could speak for God without usurping God's place in Jewish monolatry.'

    The Epistles of James and Jude, 1 Peter do not have a Jesus speaking for God.

    Jesus hardly speaks in the Pauline epistles, except through revelations.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You write 'Paul does seem to accept some sort of heavenly existence of Christ prior to Jesus’s earthly life'

    But this was before Mark wrote about whom you write 'There is no indication anywhere in Mark that Jesus had a heavenly existence prior to his life on earth,...'

    If Jesus was promoted to God, why was he first demoted?

    And if the first Christians like Paul were convinced Jesus was a mere man, an agent of God, why did Paul have '...little to say about Jesus’s earthly life and teachings..'

    Compare Paul with some of the speeches in Acts, where we learn that Jesus came from Nazareth, performed miracles, was handed over by Jews, handed him over to Pilate to be killed, etc.

    The man Jesus is unimportant to Paul, but this is supposed to be the time when Jesus was thought of as just an exalted man.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ Steven: If you can't see the difference between "Christianity originated in paganism" and the kind of development I'm describing from what I've written so far, or from my long essay on Jesus (see the Essays link at the top of the page), then I don't think I be of any help. You seem to have made up your mind about what you think I'm saying and thus refuse to pay any attention to what I'm actually saying.

    With regard to Paul and Mark, there is no need to assume that Christinaity developed linearly, passing through one stage after another. Modern scholarship has shown that different Christianities existed at the same time and didn't believe the same things. Jesus's promotion happened faster in Paul's circle than in the circles represented by the Synoptic gospels. But nowhere in Paul do we find the equation Jesus = God. (Phil 2:6 does NOT say Jesus was God "in very nature", it says he was "in the form of God". This is probably best interpreted as an analogy to Adam, made in the "image" of God. (See Dunn's
    Christology In the Making.) You can't trust modern translations on these things.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. No analogy to Adam is present in Philippians 2:6.

    Nor is Adam ever referred to as being 'in the form of God' in the Greek translation of Genesis.

    But please put forward the textual evidence that shows an analogy to Adam in Philippians 2.

    There is none. Not one word.


    Paul is not interested in Jesus the man. Jesus the man did not do anything, not even testify to this new righteousness that had been made known.

    So where is the mere mortal who was promoted in Paul and Hebrews?

    '...has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; (Hebrews 1:2)'

    'For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (1 Cor. 8)'

    The Lord Jesus Christ , through whom all things came....

    Paul and Hebrews have an exalted heavenly being who pre-existed and to whom every knee had to bow in worship.

    Only later comes the non-pre-existent man.

    The closer you get to 33 AD, the more exalted Jesus becomes, until by 1 Corinthians 8, Jesus is the one Lord, and the being through whom all things came.

    'Jesus's followers did not think of him as divine - they thought of him as a (special) man.'

    A special man - through whom all things came, and through whom they live.

    Just how special a man do you have to be before you become responsible for the creation of all things, and sustain all life?

    That sounds remarkably life divinity to me.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 'This is probably best interpreted as an analogy to Adam, made in the "image" of God.'

    I'm a bit confused by this.

    In Christian thought, were Adam and Jesus the only people made 'in the image of God', and so they could be singled out by Paul like that?

    Or are all human beings made in the image of God, in Christian theology?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Steven: for Paul, Jesus was the "second Adam." If you really want the full argument, read Dunn; I can't do his argument justice here in the comments (or even in a longish blog post).

    ReplyDelete
  13. Paul does indeed regard Jesus as the second Adam.

    But Adam was not created in the form of God.

    Nor was Adam equal to God.

    There is no reference to Adam in Philippians, explicit or implicit, even if Dunn needs there to be one to support his view of early Christianity.

    Dunn knows all about 1 Corinthians 8:6

    Paul says there is only one god and only one Lord, and Jesus was the means by which all creation came into being.



    We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

    Jesus was only demoted to a human appointed by god only after the earliest Christians had made him a god who created everything.

    Dunn knows this, but it is not acceptable to him.

    ReplyDelete
  14. How does Dunn deal with Philippians claim that Jesus had the form of god and then took on the form of a human being, something that is obviously not analogous to Adam, who had the form of a human being from the start?

    When did Adam lose his form of God?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Adam was created in the "image of God", which is not so different from the "form of God." Of course, making the connection requires a great deal more work, and if you are really interested in the textual evidence I suggest (again) that you read Dunn.

    There have been many other attempts to explain this Philippians passage: see Where Christology Began, edited by Martin and Dodd, for a collection of diverse viewpoints by different scholars.

    My point is not that Dunn MUST be correct in his interpretation, but that it's possible to find an interpretation that is more in line with what Paul writes elsewhere than is the simple equation Jesus = God.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The "one God, one Lord" passage is explained very well by the divine agent hypothesis: Jesus Christ is God's divine agent, the one through whom God acts. God's creation through Jesus is an example of how God acts by way of his agent/ambassador.

    ReplyDelete