Lord Jesus Christ, by Larry Hurtado, Part 12: Inside the "furnace"

VISIONS OF THE exalted Christ, prophetic oracles, inspired songs and charismatic exegesis of biblical texts - these comprise perhaps the primary examples of the validating religious experiences of the earliest circles of Christianity.

Yesterday we saw how these experiences would have provided the necessary "furnace" to enable and demand that a serious reconfiguration of the existing Jewish devotional matrix be undertaken. Today, then, we can enumerate these various sorts of religious experience.

1. Visions - I note with interest Hurtado's openness to the centrality of the Spirit via his referencing here of 1 Cor. 14:26, which is most powerfully manifest in a collective setting. Think about it: in these revelations, the Spirit is pivotal to making the resurrected Son central alongside the Father.

2. Prophetic oracles and inspired songs  - again this is not every lone Christian experience, but a feature of the shared experience of the group. Interestingly, we have access to some of the productions of this period through some of Paul's citations of hymns known to his recipients (e.g. Phil. 2:6-11). There was no literary brilliance involved either: These were not the products of trained poets but arose out of the religious exaltation of Christians (p. 73).

3. "Charismatic exegesis" - it is interesting to reflect on the very real possibility that Hurtado provides us that integrating a revisitation of the Old Testament texts (also considered to be inspired by the Holy Spirit) could be part of this communal furnace experience. We can tend to associate analysis of biblical texts as a serious and considered preoccupation that is available to a few from the pulpit and the rest of us at home (in light of that pulpit). Not so the first Christians! In particular, Hurtado shows some legitimate wonder at the usage of the highly monotheistic text of Isaiah 45:23 in Philippians 2:10-11, where Christ gets to be Kyrios in this Old Testament passage!

In addition to these aspects, Hurtado also considers that prayer for divine revelations would have featured, and indeed invigorated fresh inquiry into their Jewish scriptures.

It is this highly experiential life and breath understood through the lens of the Spirit that would have permitted such rapid and intense proportions of Jesus devotion to occur. For me, that might make three, even or perhaps particularly in the context of worship.

Come back tomorrow for Part 13: The Religious Environment, which will see us complete the four factors Hurtado provides for the emergence and shape of Christian devotion to Jesus in the first century. Before I go - ever so grateful to Dr. Hurtado for recommending this series on his own blog, I hope any newcomers from there are enjoying the style and approach I've adopted. We are not too far now from the end of chapter 1, at which point I will provide a summary with Hurtado's chapter structure and my corresponding posts for ease of access.

Lord Jesus Christ, by Larry Hurtado, Part 11: Religious Experience

Christ-devotion quickly amounted to what may be regarded as an unparalleled innovation, a “mutation” or new variant form of exclusivist monotheism in which a second figure (Jesus) was programmatically included with God in the devotional pattern of Christian groups. Outside the Jewish-Christian circles in which this binitarian pattern arose, the characteristic force of exclusivist monotheism seems to have prevented any other figure being treated as rightful recipient of cultic devotion, just as this monotheistic constraint served in early Christian circles to work against any additional figures other than God and Jesus being accorded such reverence. (My emphasis. p. 64)

Despite what we noticed yesterday about the polarising effects of Jesus' words and actions, Hurtado is the first to recognise that this is hardly sufficient explanation for the mutation described above. Rather, it is the combination of the constraint of monotheism, the polarisation and religious experiences with "revelatory validity", as Hurtado aptly puts it, that will cause this initially-Jewish movement to "mutate". Similarly to the caution our author extends to the content of the polarisation Jesus caused, we also should satisfy ourselves not with the content of these experiences per se, rather see that these experiences did indeed validate the solidifying belief structures and devotional practices of the earliest Christian communities. Surely, I thought to myself, as I first read through this section with gusto back in May, we are going to be introduced to the central role of the Holy Spirit for these communities? How will Hurtado articulate that centrality within his "binitarian" model? While that question must be left to hang for the rest of the book, Hurtado obviously must integrate discussion at this stage on the Spirit.

First, he notes that these crucial experiences have tended to be sidelined in many historical studies, which prefer to focus on more theological doctrines. Gunkel, writing way back in 1888, is briefly alluded to as a watershed publication on the Spirit's importance for Paul. A few pages are available of this translated work are available as a sample on the Amazon website and are worth a visit:

It cannot be disputed that even at Paul's position at this point in his teaching [the period of his life when he was writing his epistles] can be properly understood and evaluated only when we first consider the ideas that were first available to the apostle within Christian circles. (p. 9)

We must designate Judaism as the real matrix of the gospel (p. 13)

In the matter of the Spirit's activities, we have to do with an ancient Hebrew or perhaps primitive Semitic conception that had undergone only slight changes in the apostolic age. 

In the eyes of the primitive Christian community [this daily experience of the Holy Spirit] render[s] the presence of the Spirit an undeniable fact. 

If the notion of Spirit in ancient Israel had not been uncommonly vivid, a fact that can often enough be proved with examples, then its origin and persistence throughout many centuries up to the apostolic age would be totally inconceivable.

We are dealing here with an idea that was unusually vital in primitive Christianity. (p. 14)

Impressive. Without having accessed this work yet in full, it seems clear that Gunkel had a similar project to Hurtado and ourselves today, although with respect to the Spirit.

Hurtado also cites again his great sparring partner, Dunn, with a great quote from Jesus and the Spirit:

Dunn insisted that we also have to grant “the creative power of his own religious experience—a furnace which melted many concepts in its fires and poured them forth into new moulds. . . . Nothing should be allowed to obscure that fact.” (LJC p. 66)

This is absolute dynamite. What these experiences provide for then is the veritable "furnace" that we are looking for that would permit such rapid reconfigurations of such slowly-developed religious worldviews as Jewish monotheism - and God's experiential Spirit is at the heart of that.

Hurtado explores some of the ins and outs of the argumentation in the literature that basically concludes that these experiences can be genuinely innovative, even if fuelled by traceable influences.

Time to delve into what those experiences must have been; top of the list is obvious: the resurrected Christ (pp. 71-72), which would have led to the following convictions:

(1) that God had released Jesus from death, so that it really is Jesus, not merely his memory or influence, who lives again; (2) that God has bestowed on Jesus uniquely a glorious new form of existence, immortal and eschatological bodily life; (3) that Jesus has also been exalted to a unique heavenly status, thus presiding by God’s appointment over the redemptive program; and (4) that those who were given these special encounters with the risen Jesus were divinely commissioned to proclaim Jesus’ exalted status and to summon people to recognize in his resurrection/exaltation the signal that the eschatological moment of redemption has arrived. (My emphasis. p. 72 )

My sense is that this commissioning and eschatological status of the Christians' new era were profoundly connected to the marked and experienced empowerment of the Holy Spirit. Thus, we are not describing simply "visions" of the resurrected Jesus, but veritable "experiences" of him that empowered his followers with extraordinary purpose. Let us turn briefly to Gordon Fee's Paul, the Spirit and the People of God (Hodder & Stoughton):

The Spirit as an experienced and empowering reality was for Paul and his churches the key player in all of Christian life, from beginning to end. (xv)

In the case of the Spirit we are dealing with the essential matter of early Christian experience [...which] was how the early believers came to understand themselves as living at the beginning of the end times [...] the Spirit was guarantee that God would conclude what he had begun in Christ (= Paul's eschatological framework).  (emphasis original. pp. 2-3)

The experience of the Holy Spirit and of Christ through the Spirit seem to be central to Gunkel and Fee's perspective of these pre-Pauline communities, but Hurtado keeps his focus on the post-resurrection experience of Jesus. He continues from the previous citation on p. 72:... likely involved an encounter with a figure recognized as Jesus but also exhibiting features that convinced the recipients that he had been clothed with divine-like glory and given a unique heavenly status. This description appears to me reminiscent, although not for Hurtado, of the Daniel 7 depiction of the Son of Man. Regardless, it is this exalted experience of Christ that would lead to the necessity to venerate him accordingly, which as revealed and required by God himself, the mutation is not simply justified but mandatory.

We will pause there for today - in the next post we will look at three example forms that these religious experiences most certainly took.

Lord Jesus Christ, by Larry Hurtado, Part 10: Jesus, the polarizing figure, just like Marmite...

JESUS IN BOTH life and memory polarized his listeners.

Today, we move away at last from our discussion around monotheism - Larry Hurtado's first of four factors governing the early emergence of first century "binitarian" Christian worship - and move over to his second factor: Jesus himself. In the previous section, we saw that monotheism provided a constraining influence on the practice of devotion to Jesus, we established some of the contours of what appears to be Hurtado's usage of the word "binitarian" and we questioned the effects and meaning of the inclusion of gentile converts (ex-polytheists). On this last point - just to situate anyone joining us at this point - as an advocate for an early Jewish-Christian form of trinitarian faith, I am asking the question of some of Hurtado's key factors of binitarian devotion: might the Holy Spirit also have been pivotal for such an historic development? More of that in the next post.

Back to Jesus. It might sound like an obvious point, but theologians and historians of Christian origins can do a lot of speculating, postulating and theorising around this or that feature of Christianity and somehow avoid the man himself. I've probably been guilty of that too. Hurtado is not, however, although he will also wisely avoid plunging himself too deeply off-track into appraisals of this or that movement to rediscover what "the historical Jesus" might have required in terms of religious veneration. The material to cover is too vast and the primary point that emerges for his own thesis does not depend on a specific reconstruction, because our author will point to the polarizing effects of Jesus on his followers both during his earthly ministry and in his subsequent memory as resurrected and exalted Lord.

Like Marmite is cleverly promoted through its early image of being a spread British consumers either loved or hated (I love it!), Jesus seems to have thrust a radical choice onto his hearers. Either they accept him as God's messiah of a truly biblical, transformational and inclusive humanity, or you reject him (and repeat, on whatever serious subject matter is necessary). What you don't do, says Hurtado, is adopt some unsubstantiated pacifistic Jesus, who was only made into a polarizing force at some later stage (roughly in this camp: Hurtado tackles Geza Vermes, Burton Mack and, most significantly for me, John Dominic Crossan).

Nonetheless, the bridging mechanism between the polarized Jesus of the church and the polarizing Galilean I felt was not very strongly emphasised by Hurtado in response to authors like Mack: there was likely something in Jesus’ own actions and statements that generated, or at least contributed to, this polarization. In response to Crossan, he is stronger: if [Jesus] intended no special role for himself in their religious life, Jesus would have to be seen as spectacularly unsuccessful in communicating his intentions to his followers. [KL 1088] 

Responding to Mack he responds with solid appeals for proof: we do have direct evidence of how Jesus’ sayings were used by a number of Christian circles and none of these circles corresponds to the sort of group that Mack posits. [KL 1134] 

Hurtado is referring to an argument from Mack, which appears to be substantially based on "Q", which we will be discussing this in more depth later in the series (and always including the quotes around "Q"). W, Hurtado is loyal to the "Q" hypothesis, which is indeed backed by a majority of scholars writing on the synoptic problem, but intercepts Mack's inferences - since it contains primarily sayings of Jesus and lacks central Christian doctrines on the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ, Mack claims at the very beginning around when "Q" was written those components weren't yet present in the thinking of Jesus' followers.

All of this said, however, it is still curious to note that Hurtado keeps this mental reserve for some gap between what the impact of Jesus and what Jesus' intentions may have been: "in any case, whether in keeping with his intention or not, people were polarized over Jesus" [KL 1091]. We should understand then that what he is tackling is that there can be any scope for a phase during or after Jesus' earthly life in which the primary response to his words and actions was indifference. Not happenin'.

To close, Hurtado summarizes it best: "the immediate and dominant outcome of Jesus’ career was a sharply divided set of views about him, with some so negative as to justify his crucifixion and some so positive as to form the basis of one or more new religious movements" [KL 1162]

Before I sign off, I just wanted to flag that this is the context for the fascinating idea I cited from Hurtado before, right at the start of the series, about dysfunctional or unsuccessful religious mutations. Tracking the christianities that succeeded as mutations from Judaism is, I think, of great interest, especially if we want to claim (like I do) that the Holy Spirit's centrality could not have been a subsequent mutation. With this in mind, and with the glorious benefit of hindsight (!), it is tempting to hold up the mutated triune hub of successful Christianity as the measuring stick of "success" during the first two centuries in particular.

Lord Jesus Christ, by Larry Hurtado, Part 9: what does Hurtado mean by "binitarian" and monotheism effects on Jesus worship

THIS UNUSUAL “BINITARIAN” devotional pattern certainly requires further analysis and adequate explanation.

These words constitute Hurtado's opening line for this section in which we will see the effects that Jewish monotheism probably had on Christian worship - needless to say, I will have some extra questions regarding quite what the inclusion of Gentiles into this context might have signified - needless to say, however, Hurtado is going to continue to masterfully fill out for us the major contour lines we need.

Before we go any further, however, let's stop a second. Do you see how Hurtado is using this word, "binitarian"? It is a crucial question, and one that this book does not explore specifically (although see expansion below), but we have to ask it. Is he implying that *someone* is binitarian or that *something* is binitarian? It's a thing. That thing is called here a "devotional pattern". Everything hinges on this distinction for my hypothesis, which, just to remind anyone joining the cruise here, agrees that there are most certainly two distinct but joined stages of trinitarian development in the first four centuries of Christianity. In the first century, monotheistic faith came to be reshaped around two additional entities. The faith - not God himself - became trinitarian in its discourse and practice. So do I agree with Hurtado's usage of "binitarian"? Yes and no - although mainly yes. Yes, for the point I just made about it relating to some aspect of faith. My two itty bitty "no" components are to do with the fact that I don't agree that not explicitly making this distinction is completely fine. Some readers - maybe many - who are reading this may gloss over this language, excited to see that Trinitarianism (capital T) starts as early as they hoped. I hope I am just as excited. Only I want to keep my excitement in line with what careful historians are actually piecing together.

Hurtado introduces now a new term, which we need to understand as a direct translation of his previous preference for "mutation": "variant". This is a curious choice for me - apparently, the reason he makes this switch (although he doesn't give up on mutation completely and has a palette of equivalent terms) is twofold. Firstly, since he wrote One God, One Lord, in which "mutation" was used on scores of occasions, mutation language has received some criticism in the academy as somewhat derogatory, although I have no idea by whom. Secondly, he feels like "variant" is an informative illustrative term because, as he knows, and as some of his readership will know, a textual variant has a specific meaning in the field of textual criticism. But that is a highly specialised and less graphic illustration than mutation, and I won't hide constitutes a peculiar choice for me. So this "variant" is, in fact, monotheistic Christianity, and more specifically, the binitarian worship practice within Christianity that still holds to there being precisely one God. This central feature of monotheism in earliest Christianity, we would do well to remember (and I don't think Hurtado feels the need to remind his readership of this, probably assuming prior knowledge), is not something that was defined in quite those terms. Coincidentally, or perhaps not so coincidentally, I believe it is in the context of worship that the word monotheism first arises, as far as we know, with μονόθεον occurring in a Byzantine hymn (see an old post I did on this here). A hymn! I think Hurtado would have liked that.

But we've still not got much further than simply affirming that Christianity represents a mutation of a nonetheless monotheistic Judaism. Hurtado will go on to emphasise the exclusive force of monotheism on Christianity when he states: "Inasmuch as exclusivist monotheism is manifested essentially...in a refusal to offer worship to any figure other than the one God" (my italics). OK, so you might think maybe Hurtado does mean something more by "binitarian" after all! Sometimes it is difficult to track, to be honest, but I think it's an imperfect line out of step with his wording throughout this section. Indeed, I can also say that from reading quite a bit of Hurtado that this line seems odd. Why? Because Christ is another figure (see below) and is consistently referenced by Hurtado as such, albeit with the usual caveats of distinct-yet-joined. One of my favourite lines in Revelation is chapter 12, verse 10, which I think can bring some clarity about how in the first century we might talk of God and Christ together:

Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:‘Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down.

Christ is God's Messiah, according to this passage. Elsewhere we can see co-ownership of the kingdom described through the powerful (presumably) single "throne of God and of the Lamb" in Rev 22:1 and 22:3, and most spectacularly here in 11:15:

Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven saying: "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever." 

Religious priestly activity is also now organised in a binitarian way in Rev 20:6, but look at how it is articulated:

Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

So this would seem, to me at least, that this sentence of Hurtado's needed some further explanation, that indeed another figure - God's Messiah, the lamb - is indeed in view, albeit in the same devotional snapshot (God would not be able to take a selfie in Revelation without Jesus being in the shot), as my examples seem to demand. Further, the constraints of monotheism must be satisfied from within the Judeo-Christian worldview. This is also an important consideration, as although first century Jewish "converts" to Christianity were able to understand a way in which they were, in fact, being faithful to God's command to worship him and Christ alongside him (or maybe firstly of himself via Christ, his "icon", to adopt Dunn's perspective), that this view was precisely not acceptable to mainstream Judaism, along with other characteristics of the Christian faith.

Hurtado's point, though, for Christianity is that its monotheistic inheritance meant that Jesus could not be deified as a separate deity. That is also crucial, that is the one thing to remember from this section - not my quibbles. We might also add that he could not replace the deity (I wonder if that might be the context behind John remembering Jesus saying "the Father is greater than I", John 14:28, but see also Luke 6:35, 1 Cor 15:27-8). This limitation on Jesus is helpfully termed by Hurtado as "the constraining effect of monotheism".

Turning specifically to how Jesus might be legitimately worshipped now. How was he perceived in this radical new configuration? "[H]is divine significance is characteristically expressed in terms of his relationship to the one God." OK, so we are more comfortably, I would say, back in line with the thrust of the New Testament texts and finding Hurtado's crucial breakthrough of divine endorsement. God knows about this worship, he even desires it and is glorified through it, it's all part of his great Plan. Hurtado has this masterful way of turning back to all those who like me who have pulled their hair out at all those blatant "and"-s separating Jesus and God throughout the New Testament, and saying "you see it but you don't see it"! That is a point I think he also made in an interview somewhere, that it is actually difficult for a New Testament author to speak of God without also speaking of Jesus within a verse or two. The two now function in the first-century mindset together. Hurtado also calls this in the present section "the programmatic inclusion" of Jesus. I quite like this, but programmatic feels slightly too exclusively intentional for me - I don't know what I'd say instead either, but I'd like to appeal also to the organic, natural inclusion of Jesus-worship into Jewish worship practices somehow. Hurtado is also now able to revisit his usage of "binintarian", expanding it slightly: it is still a worship pattern (not a god), around two figures ("God and Jesus", KL 969), operating within a monotheistic framework.

Finally, Hurtado asserts the various ways in which Jesus plays off pre-existent ideas of divine agents developed during second temple times, but also how he has adapted that category in the case of worship - but not in all the other cases. God's accomplishment of salvation for his people through this agent is unprecedented as it has catapulted the people, unexpectedly, into a new era of the Spirit indwelling all peoples. This is my addition, and leads to my question that is not posed in this section: what about the inclusion of Gentiles into this mix? The very fact that they are supposed to be there (although some failure to include is confronted by Paul, as is well known) is also a paradigm-shifting indicator. The first resurrection has happened, of God's messiah, no less. God has operated this inclusive and universal salvation through this Jesus. The presence of monotheistic Jewish Jesus-followers in the meetings is significant, but so is the presence of ex-pagan believers, who have renounced polytheistic practices, accept social discrimination and hardship for not performing the appropriate sacrifices on behalf of their trust in God's open invitation through his son, the Messiah, and the ongoing confirming seal of the Spirit. Thus, this inaugurated age in which all peoples can now come and glorify God is heavily associated by the New Testament authors with the outpouring of his Spirit on "all peoples". So to what extent could we already say that in another sense, this worship practice might, in fact, be "trinitarian", given that "binitarian" didn't have to mean a "binitarian god"? We will be asking questions of the Spirit again when we reach the experiential factors a few posts later.

Next section for tomorrow: how Jesus himself shaped his future worship.

Hope you're enjoying it - any feedback you'd like to leave? Anyone you can think of who might like joining us? Would you please consider forwarding the link to the blog? Thanks so much.

Coregency

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation

Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah

This morning I woke up much too early because of congestion. My stuffy nose had meant that my breathing had been entirely through my mouth, completely drying it out. However, it got me pondering about the neurological authorities involved in the incredible breathing apparatus with which we are all endowed. Think about it for a moment. You can take total control of your breathing. Speed it up, slow it down, make it shallow, make it deep, breathe through your mouth, breathe through your nose (or even do both) or even stop it entirely to consume food and drink or take a plunge underwater; most importantly, while exhaling, manage your breath past your vocal chords in such a way as to make distinct sounds that we call "talking". And yet: 99% of the time (my made-up statistic), we are totally unaware of our own breathing and it is operated from an unconscious neurological location in a similar way to the beating of our hearts - to which we have no access whatsoever. In sum, not only is breathing amazing, but its authority distribution is seamless.

It then occurred to me that there could be some theological mileage in this as a helpful way to understand God's kingdom. The book of Revelation, right at the back of our Bibles, paints the clearest picture of all the New Testament of this coregency dynamic at work. God's kingdom has been entrusted to his Messiah, to whom he has given full authority for actual rule. This is not me trying to twist an interpretation into today's post, it is simply me trying to give good credence to the above passages. Coregency is what allows both regents to graciously assert that it is their kingdom. Some people today, including in the world of Christian apologetics, would like to temporarily suspend the possibility of concepts like co-ownership and coregency, before continuing with their lives in which such power-sharing practices continue to shape the fabric of our societies.

Bart Ehrman - mistaken on Judas? (2)

I did receive a reply from Bart Ehrman:

I’m not saying that any of htese terms means any one thing; but I am saying that if you want to say “betray” in Greek you use PRODIDOMI, not PARADIDOMI. If you want to pursue this further, you might look at my discussion in my book on Judas. (I’m out of the country now and can’t remember which scholar convinced me on this point. Was it William Klassen???)

Ok so I got caught short there - neither have I read Bart's book on Judas nor do I know William Klassen, but I wasn't about to admit that was I?!

Another lady responded, then I also replied with a post that was probably too long to be read by him, but you never know. To the faithful of this blog I am SURE that won't be a problem, right?!

Mark 3:19 is an example of the verb applied directly to Judas, and as I said there are multiple examples from all four gospels. It seems to me that Bart is saying that this is not a pure form of betrayal. It speaks more of a (simpler? more descriptive?) “handing over”, even when applied to Judas like in Mk 3:19.

Couple of problems in trying to protect the two Greek words from possibilities of overlap or of flexibility (at least on the part of the one we are probing more deeply, paradidomi). Firstly, if Jesus hands *himself* over, therefore not implying deceit, how can we see “the man” by whom the Son of Man will be “handed over” in Mark 14:21/Luke 22:22 as equally guiltless? We can’t, whether or not Paul was familiar with these accounts. Secondly, as you mention, it seems that many of the Greek reference sources agree that betrayal IS one of the shades of meaning of this word.

Regarding the whole issue of “the twelve” – I don’t see why, if I put myself temporarily in Bart’s shoes (big and very respectable shoes that I shouldn’t be toying with probably), then I don’t see why I would be so heavily leaning on a book like Acts and its historicity about precisely when the twelfth member was re-appointed. There are waaaay to many “what ifs” that could come into play to explain Paul saying “the 12”. What if Judas did betray Jesus but Jesus also was known to have appeared to him as one of the 12 before Judas banished himself to another country in perpetual shame (hence discordant death stories)? What if Paul made a mistake (hardly anyone would have remembered the very short period when people went around talking about the “eleven”)? What if the only person who EVER mentioned “the Eleven” like that was Luke telling his story decades later in a Tolkienian fashion to engage his readership (before the Mark long-ending-writer grabbed it from Luke) (Luke IS the only one to mention "The Eleven" in the NT)? What if Luke made a mistake about the timings of the replacement apostle, and would it be the first time he fitted events and stories into a timeline he applies to keep a narrative feel? What if Paul really didn’t know much about what happened in terms of the technicalities of the betrayal/handing-over (like Judas’ name)? What if saying Judas’ name (for some) for a relatively short period of early church history was sooo bad that it was like exposing yourself spiritually to similar betrayal? What if… well I’m not as good as Bart is for the what-if scenarios, but I am sure he and probably many others on this blog could come with a really good list if they really wanted to.

Theology really is quite crazy. I just forgot why this Judas-betrayal question even matters! I guess the familiarity of Paul with the gospels is a big one.

BTW I still loved the “spilling the messianic secret beans” post. Seems more and more plausible each time I think about it, unlike this one, which I think has to remain open. I am grateful for being made to think about it quite deeply and discover more of the nuances here in the Greek.

Final thought on Paul’s remarkable ignorance – I can’t find another mention of him after Acts. So it’s not just Paul who does not focus on this key gospel figure.

Bart Ehrman - mistaken on Judas?

Bart has done a few posts on the crucifixion. In a recent one he doubts that Paul was aware of the whole betrayal incident by Judas (in fact he even goes so far as to say "It is worth noting that the apostle Paul knows nothing of the tradition that Judas betrayed Jesus or that he killed himself". Before I say why he thinks that and why I am not at all convinced, let me share first something he had already said that was very interesting.

Based on the work of Albert Schweitzer, Bart agrees that maybe what happened was that on a deeper level of betrayal, Judas spilled the beans about the Messianic secret, which tied in closely with being the "Son of God", a messianic title. Bart states: "But what do the Jewish authorities accuse Jesus of?  They accuse him of calling himself the messiah (Mark 14:61-62; note: the “king of Israel” was also called “the son of God” – see 2 Sam. 7:11-14).

And that is the charge Pilate tries him on.  Pilate asks him “Are you the King of the Jews,” and [...] this is the reason he had him crucified."

This makes more sense to me than the simple garden-kissing incident alone.

So that is where I feel Bart sheds some potential light. However, where I am much more sceptical (it's so refreshing being sceptical of a sceptic!) is his take on Paul and Judas. He argues that Paul knew nothing of this betrayal. He bases this on two points (I only take serious issue with the first)

1. The fact that the word the gospel writers use for "betray" can also be used to mean "hand over", and not only that, but Paul never uses the word to mean "betray", According to Bart, this means that when Paul writes PARADIDOMI in 1 Cor. 11:22-24,  “On the night in which he was betrayed”, he is very unlikely to be referring to Judas' betrayal, but more the "handing over" of God. 

2. 1 Cor 15:5-8, Paul recounts eye-testimony to the resurrection:  first he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve, then he appeared to more than 500... 12 minus 1 = 11! Fair point. They were only restored to the number of 12, according to Acts, after Jesus had ascended to the Father.

This is my response to Bart Ehrman on his blog (I shall post any follow-up correspondence if interesting):

What is not so clear is that PRODIDOMI has to mean betray. In Romans 11:35 it definitely doesn’t. Bart may well be right (that Paul was not referring to Judas but instead to God handing him over), but the assumptions of clear-cut definitions as he puts them here failed to satisfy me today.

Another thing PARADIDOMI doesn’t mean betray?!

Bart does specify that PAUL doesn’t use it this way, but he also does not draw attention to the fact that all four gospel writers use this word EXTENSIVELY to describe Judas and his act. If Paul doesn’t focus on Judas in his writings (or the very few writings that WE have), what other occasion would he have had to use PARADIDOMI in a betrayal sense? Finally, (smaller point) when Paul (and “Peter”) use PARADIDOMI, it is a bit wider than simply God delivering his son; Jesus also gives himself up, people are delivered to their own depravity, it’s quite general and not specifically located in a narrative, unlike this one passage in 1 Cor. 11:22-24. 

Definite article and the Google Car

Does "the" mean "one" and when can it differ?

I just listened to a rather anecdotal news item on france24 about the Google Car, now in camel form, as Google's street view concept is developed still further into the UAE desert! What stuck me in this story is how a very finite and countable noun-object, a car, can be taken up a level. It is a shame I cannot remember the exact wording, but it ran, very naturally, something like:

"the Google Car has been capturing street images in streets and through countryside in many countries across the world, but now Google are turning to the novel concept of strapping the equipement to a CAMEL!"

Now of course there may have been at one point one single and initial car, that became known as the Google Car, but at some point this concept became so common as to be applied to not just one car but any car used by Google for this purpose.

So in what sense is "the" the definite article here?

It is accurate as a concept. There are not multiple google car concepts in this sentence, and not only that, the design of the google car is such that the fleet provide an integrated, single and incredible result: google street view.

However, if we were to apply this language in a rigid noun-object sense, then we would be in difficulty, because clearly, for one single physical Google car to photograph significant portions of the world's inhabited areas would not be strategic!

So...

Is the same true of Greek?

It would seem to me possible. When "the anointed one" is referred to a single-referring term, there is no confusion in the 1st century religious mind about the awaited Messiah figure not being in some kind of re-incarnated sense another, previously anointed one of God, such as Cyrus (Is 45.1) or David. In the same way that "the Google car" applied in a conceptual sense does not have us considering one single physical car tearing around the streets of the world.

Another very important area in which this kind of thinking needs to be applied is the area of our own origins and son/daughter-ship. From John chapter 1:

12Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--

13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

I believe that this kind of thinking may have been helpful in the recent revisions (NIV, NRSV) around Hebrews 2 which looks radically different to me than the translations were giving us ten years ago.

BEFORE [NIV]:

You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor

and put everything under his feet." In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him.

But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might tasted death for everyone.

2014 [NIV]:

7You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor

8and put everything under their feet." In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them.

9But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Son of God, Messiah, Jewish Religious Establishment's expectation on national salvation

Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?’

62‘I am,’ said Jesus. 

This quote is from Mark chapter 14. The key point of this quote for me, as with my other post about Mark 12's present tense descriptions of the Messiah, is that we are able to access a 1st century jewish worldview here, because we can consider that we are accessing (for the moment, see the obvious assumption below) what a Jewish LEADER is thinking, teaching and upholding at the time of Jesus' ministry. That is a pretty cool peace of research if we can claim it.

For this high priest, we could say that he is aiming for total unambiguity here. Because he does not want any confusion to surround the "blasphemous" claims of Jesus, he makes it totally plain to us that for Jews at this time, there is a truly great Messiah to be expected, and who is also defined as the Son of God. The priest takes his vocation very seriously here of course and refers, like Matthew frequently does, to a synonym for God, "Blessed One". So for the Jewish establishment, represented here by the high priest, we can see that

THE MESSIAH = THE SON OF GOD

The assumption we must recognise of course is that the report we are reading through a follower of Jesus, Mark, has accurately reported the words of the high priest. I am very happy with this assumption, especially as we generally see a less stylised and earlier account through this gospel.

I would like to think that while the Jewish establishment were theologically favourable toward resurrection, that we do not have as much solid evidence that they were expecting a triune God to show up in his second hypostasis taking on flesh in Jesus in a hypostatic union (!). For the Jewish establishment, what is blasphemous here IS NOT that God would have a son, that was a given, but the issue of blasphemy here is that JESUS WOULD CLAIM HE WAS GOD'S ANOINTED ONE WHEN HE WAS NOT (or so it was presumed). It is difficult for us to imagine what is going through the High Priest's mind at this stage. The outrage. The fury. This man is trying to shake up and down his life, responsibilities, doctrine...

We have not even looked at the centurion's reaction as Jesus "breathed his last", but the implications of this mini-study on Jewish establishment perception on Messiahship and son of God, while less far-reaching perhaps on the unitarian vs trinitarian debate, can perhaps help us (certainly me) in dialogue with other faiths that do consider being "son of God" to be a blasphemous statement on totally different premises.

Mark 12:35-37 and the present-tense Messiah

Mark 12:35-37New International Version (NIV)

Whose Son Is the Messiah?

35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:

“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
    “Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
    under your feet.”’[a]

37 David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”

The large crowd listened to him with delight.

I read this text, and its synoptic parallels in Matthew 22 and Luke 20, and am startled by the presumption shared here between Jesus and his listeners. It sounds like that at least in one sense, nobody expected the Messiah to simply "ping" into existence, on the basis of another hopefully obvious assumption, that the "teachers of the law" were not teaching the people that the Messiah was already born/had already come. But, let us be thorough and spell this out: most of the teachers of the law that we know Jesus met, opposed Jesus (see Mark 2 for example, for the allegations of blasphemy, or simply earlier in the same chapter when they, along with "the chief priests" and "the elders" began to look for a way to kill him).

If the Messiah simply IS and not WILL BE, what could this mean? The pro-nicene trinitarians will insist of course that this corroborates their version of events, Jesus is co-eternal. It might, however, appear odd to them that the Messiah as a Jewish concept might be an eternal one.

In a second sense, we could say that this hope was alive and true in the hearts of all Jews, not that it would have been incorrect or surprising to say "how then will he be his son" or for the teachers of the law to have been teaching that the "Messiah will be the son of David", but that the tense consistently given in the synoptic tradition seems to portray a more adequate way of speaking about the reality of the living messianic promise from God himself.

In a third sense, and I think this might be perhaps truest to this pericope, we can also integrate some kind of pre-medical way of thinking about DNA! The Messiah has to be (note how this works in the present in English also) in the blood line of David.

Fourthly, we might remember that the whole issue of the tense, presently true or false, is actually on the table - see the rather curiously exegeted verses in 18-26 of the same chapter. God is the God of the living!

Fifthly, another possibility eases its way onto my horizon. What if the Messiah is not a single person? Like the King of Israel, or like Cyrus in Isaiah 45:1? This might help explain why Jesus has David talking to "him" a thousand years earlier and we can so happily jump through time and perspective (remember the teachers of the law's present tense). It does however fit less neatly with the parable of the vineyard, servants then finally: his son (singular), however see below on some quick problems with this rebuttal. 

How might a biblical Unitarian respond to such a text? I would actually really like to know if Samuel Clarke had anything to say about this passage.

But coming back to this a couple of days later... Jesus is expanding people's idea of the Messiah by making the Psalmist: David, quite possibly the correct interpretation but by NO means a straight forward choice.  Jesus is contrasting the presumed Messiah's (or messiahs') necessary human ancestry from David with the Messiah having apparently had Lordship over David.