Advertisement

Mark D. Roberts

Mark D. Roberts

Earliest Christian Belief About Jesus: What Evidence Do We Have?

In my last post I laid out a popular theory among some scholars for how
the early Christians came to think of Jesus as divine. Let me review it
briefly. According to this theory, the first followers of Jesus didn’t
consider him to be divine, but only an inspired man. The earliest
Christians were, after all, monotheistic Jews who didn’t go around
divinizing people. But as the Christian movement spread into the Roman
Empire, it encountered a very different ethos and was transformed by
that ethos. In the Greco-Roman world, unlike in the Jewish world, the
line between humanity and divinity was frequently crossed, not only by
mythological heroes like Hercules, but also by flesh-and-blood human
beings like the Roman Caesars. So it was only natural that formerly
pagan Christians, competing for religious allegiance against a slew of
Greco-Roman cults, would divinize Jesus. Therefore, the one who was once
only an inspired human redeemer and teacher became the One who was
regarded as divine. (Those who reject classical Christian faith
criticize this move to deify Jesus as an unnecessary and inauthentic
add-on. Real Christianity, they claim, affirms the specialness of the
human Jesus, but not his deity. See, for example, the prolific writings
of Marcus Borg.)

I mentioned before that this theory has merit
as one possible explanation of how Jesus came to be seen as God. It
isn’t a crazy theory (like the ones that “expose” Jesus as a space alien
or a closet homosexual). One of the benefits of the “Jesus was
divinized under the influence of Greco-Roman culture” theory is that we
can actually look closely at the historical evidence to see if it is
true or not.

What is the evidence for earliest Christian belief?
Unfortunately, we don’t have newspaper accounts or in-depth interviews
of the earliest followers of Jesus. There weren’t many reliable bloggers
or videographers in the first-century A.D. either. In fact, we don’t
have any information about the very earliest Christian beliefs beyond
what we find in the New Testament itself. The earliest Roman and Jewish
descriptions of Christianity confirm what we see in Christian sources,
but they were written at the end of the first-century A.D., decades
after the Christian sources at our disposal. The Gnostic writings, which
are sometimes brought forward as witnesses to earliest Christian
belief, were written after most if not all of the New Testament. So they
provide little data for understanding earliest Christian belief, though
they are helpful for our knowledge of second-century and later
Christian thought and practice.

The New Testament alone provides
authentic historical information about the earliest Christians, yet this
doesn’t come in systematic or exhaustive packages. Acts of the Apostles
supplies some clues to the earliest Christian beliefs, but tells only a
small part of the story of early Christianity. Acts was written maybe
fifty years after the events themselves (though with the help of earlier
written sources no longer available to us). The New Testament Gospels
tell the story of Jesus’ earthly ministry, but provide scant evidence of
what his first followers did and thought after Jesus disappeared from
the scene. (The literary/historical discipline of form-criticism does
provide some access to this evidence, but its results are often quite
speculative.)

Some scholars point to the document known as “Q” as
a helpful source for earliest Christian beliefs. “Q” gets its name from
the German word “Quelle” which means “source.” You’ll even find some
scholars who write about several versions of “Q,” going back to the very
earliest days of Christianity. In the first drafts of “Q,” which
conveniently don’t include verses in “Q” that contradict the “human
Jesus” theory, Jesus is an inspired teacher of wisdom, but not a divine
figure. The problem with this theory is that it is basically fiction.
There is no document “Q” in existence. It is a scholarly construct. Now,
I happen to believe that the theory that Matthew and Luke had access to
a document that consisted mainly of sayings of Jesus is a plausible
one. But scholars who think they can peel back the editorial layers of
this theoretical document, and in so doing get back to some authentic
core of Christian belief, have more confidence in the scholarly
inventions than I do. In truth, they’re making it all up on the basis of
precious little actual evidence. So even if there was a “Q” document,
discussion of layers of “Q” and the early “Q communities” provides a
sandy foundation for an understanding of earliest Christian belief. (If
you’re interested in the contents of “Q,” check this helpful list.)
(Photo: A page of a biblical manuscript known as Papyrus 46 [p46]. This
page contains portions of Galatians and Philippians, and has been dated
to the second century A.D.)

p46-Gal-Phil-5.jpg

If
Acts of the Apostles, the New Testament Gospels, and even the elusive
“Q” don’t give us too much information about earliest Christian belief,
where can we turn? To the writings of the Apostle Paul. Though scholars
debate the details, all serious scholars agree that Paul’s letters were
penned within a fifteen-year period beginning in the late forties A.D.
This means that the earliest Pauline letters were written only 15-20
years after the death of Jesus. Thus the letters themselves are primary
evidence of what some of the earliest Christians believed. These people
would include Paul, to be sure, and also his churches and his
theological opponents.

Moreover, within Paul’s letters there are
passages that, in all likelihood, capture Christian beliefs that are
earlier than the late forties A.D. Just as a preacher today might quote a
bit of a hymn or a song, Paul included such materials in his letters.
Some of these can be identified with a high level of probability. Thus
these passages in particular get us back to some of the earliest
Christian beliefs, those that pre-date Paul’s own writings.

In my
next post I want to begin to look at one of these passages in Paul’s
letters, a passage that most certainly includes one of the very earliest
records of Christian belief about Jesus.

  • http://theliberalspirit.com/awretchedman/index.php Obie Holmen

    I think your analysis is sound to this point, but I sense you are moving toward a conclusion that would suggest Paul’s writings, and perhaps his use of an apparent early hymn found in Philippians 2, is evidence of early Christian christological views. Perhaps I am anticipating too much, but if that is the direction of your thought, I would disagree.
    I think Paul’s writings and that early hymn may well represent the early christological views of PAULINE, GENTILE CHURCHES but that does resolve the question of what the earliest Christians (an anachronistic term in this context) believed. The earliest followers were the disciples, family, and other Jews of Jersusalem. These predated Paul and the Pauline, Gentile mission. These Jewish followers may well have embraced a “lower” christological view than did Paul and his followers, a view more consistent with Jewish messianic expectations.
    It is well documented that Paul and the Jerusalem Jewish followers had running disagreements during the first generation after the death of Jesus. At a minimum, these disagreements pertained to ritual Torah (circumcision, Sabbath and festivals, and diet). It is a legitimate question whether their disagreements extended more broadly to differing Hebrew points of view vs Hellenistic influences, including hints of christological disagreement.
    At various points in his correspondence, Paul disputes that he learned anything from “human origin” or “human source”, and he is clearly referring to Peter and James back in Jerusalem and clearly indicating that he held differing views from the Jerusalem establishment. Is it a radical leap to infer that the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem would have held views closer to the traditional Hebrew Messianic expectations which were more political than divine, ie a lower christology?
    Jump ahead to the second century writings of Ireneaus who wrote of the beliefs of the Ebionites (the remaining branch of Jewish Christians)suggesting they held Paul to be an apostate and maintained a human christology. Did the views of these Jewish Christians date back to the original Jewish Christians? Not conclusive but suggestive.
    We can’t be sure that these original, Jewish followers of Jesus who predated the Pauline, Gentile mission held lower christological views, but we certainly can’t conclude that Pauline, Gentile theology that would have brushed up against Hellenistic influences, reflected the christology of the earliest followers of Jesus.

  • Jonathan Biggar

    But Paul was a Pharisee, trained in the Jewish law. Why would he not be as traditionally “Messianic” as the other apostles in Jerusalem?
    And if there was a theological difference, why wouldn’t Paul and/or the author of Acts write about it? My reading of Acts and discussion of the differences between Paul and Peter suggests to me that there *weren’t* theological differences, since the Christian leaders in Jerusalem only sent out a statement about *behavior* (don’t eat meat offered to idols and avoid sexual immorality), not about affirming or disclaiming any theological questions.

  • Mark D. Roberts

    Thanks for your comments. I’ll try to interact with the ideas you raise as this series moves along.

  • http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/ Gary

    I am a former Christian. I loved being a Christian. I loved Jesus and I loved the Bible. I used to love witnessing to non-believers and loved defending my belief in (the Christian) God and orthodox/conservative Christianity. Then one day someone challenged me to take a good, hard look at the foundation of my beliefs: the Bible. I was stunned by what I discovered.

    1. The Bible is not inerrant. It contains many, many errors, contradictions, and deliberate alterations and additions by the scribes who copied it. The originals are lost, therefore we have no idea what “God” originally” said. Yes, its true—Christians can give “harmonizations” for every alleged error and contradiction, but so can the Muslims for errors in the Koran, and Mormons for errors in the Book of Mormon. One can harmonize anything if you allow for the supernatural.

    2. How do we know that the New Testament is the Word of God? Did Jesus leave a list of inspired books? Did the Apostles? Paul? The answer is, no. The books of the New Testament were added to the canon over several hundred years. Second Peter was not officially accepted into the canon until almost the FIFTH century! So why do all Christians accept every book of the New Testament as the word of God and reject every non-canonical “gospel”? Answer: the ancient (catholic) Church voted these books into your Bible. Period.

    There is nowhere in the OT or the NT where God gives men the authority to determine what is and what is not his Word. If Second Peter was really God’s Word, the entire Church should have known so in the first century.

    3. Who wrote the Gospels? We have NO idea! The belief that they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is based on hearsay and assumptions—catholic tradition. Protestants denounce most of the traditions of the Catholic Church but have retained two of the most blatant, evidence-lacking traditions, which have no basis in historical fact or in the Bible: the canon of the NT and the authorship of the Gospels.

    The only shred of evidence that Christians use to support the traditional authorship of the Gospels is one brief statement by a guy named Papias in 130 AD that someone told him that John Mark had written a gospel. That’s it! Papias did not even identify this “gospel”. Yet in 180 AD, Irenaeus, a bishop in FRANCE, declares to the world that the apostles Matthew and John and the associates of Peter and Paul—Mark and Luke—wrote the Gospels. But Irenaeus gives ZERO evidence for his assignment of authorship to these four books. It is well known to historians that it was a common practice at that time for anonymously written books to be ascribed to famous people to give them more authority. For all we know, this is what Irenaeus did in the case of the Gospels.

    The foundation of the Christian Faith is the bodily resurrection of Jesus. If the story of the Resurrection comes from four anonymous books, three of which borrow heavily from the first, often word for word, how do we know that the unheard of, fantastically supernatural, story of the re-animation of a first century dead man, actually happened??

    Maybe the first book written, “Mark”, was written for the same purpose that most books were written in that time period—for the benefit of one wealthy benefactor, and maybe it was written simply as an historical novel, like Homer’s Iliad; not meant to be 100% factual in every detail, but a mix of true historical events as a background, with a real messiah pretender in Palestine, Jesus, but with myth and fiction added to embellish the story and help sell the book! We just do not know for what purpose these books were written!

    I slowly came to realize that there is zero verifiable evidence for the Resurrection, and, the Bible is not a reliable document. After four months of desperate attempts to save my faith, I came to the sad conclusion that my faith was based on an ancient superstition; a superstition not based on lies, but based on the sincere but false beliefs of uneducated, superstitious, first century peasants.

Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Mark D. Roberts. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 2:09:11pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? Conclusions
In this series on the death of Jesus, I have presented four different perspectives on why Jesus had to die: Roman, Jewish, Jesus’, and Early Christian. I believe that each of these points of view has merit, and that we cannot fully understand the necessity of Jesus’ death without taking them all

posted 2:47:39am Apr. 11, 2011 | read full post »

Sunday Inspiration from the High Calling
Can We Find God in the City? Psalm 48:1-14 Go, inspect the city of Jerusalem. Walk around and count the many towers. Take note of the fortified walls, and tour all the citadels, that you may describe them to future generations. For that is what God is like. He is our God forever and ever,

posted 2:05:51am Apr. 10, 2011 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? The Perspective of the First Christians, Part 3
An Act and Symbol of Love Perhaps one of the most startling of the early Christian interpretations of the cross was that it was all about love. It’s easy in our day, when crosses are religious symbols, attractive ornaments, and trendy jewelry to associate the cross with love. But, in the first

posted 2:41:47am Apr. 08, 2011 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? The Perspective of the First Christians, Part 2
The Means of Reconciliation In my last post, I examined one of the very earliest Christian statements of the purpose of Jesus’ death. According to the tradition encapsulated in 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus died “for our sins in accordance with the scriptures” (15:3). Yet this text doesn’t expl

posted 2:30:03am Apr. 07, 2011 | read full post »

Advertisement


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.