How to respond to this?

[The Pixie]

The diversity of the resurrection compared to the crucifixion between the four is logically expected. The crucifixion occurred on one day while the resurrection appearances occurred during a span of 40 days. This is why the event that led up to resurrection appearances (appearing at the tomb) is more similar between the gospels (in the same vain you point out about the crucifixion) than the events during which time the appearances occurred (one day vs. 40 days).

Okay, I can accept that.

You point out that there is a succession of embellished theology from Mark to John not just with the resurrection scenes but the origins of Christ, but this isn’t at all evident during the crucifixion scene. John’s crucifixion scene is the most "non-supernatural" event out of the other three. I also argue that there is no succession of Jesus’ supernatural powers displayed throughout the gospels from Mark to John. There is no virgin birth in John; no satanic temptation; no divine voices proclaiming Jesus is the "begotten son"; no casting out demons with authority; no walking on the water or calming the storm; no Mount of Transfiguration; no ascension. The raising of Lazarus is also not unique as there are other times Jesus raised the dead that are not recorded by John. The only miracle unique in John is turning water into wine. There is another discrepancy in regards to the church issues and problems brought up by Paul and the other epistle writers that are completely absent or not addressed at all in the gospels (which is a much more elaborate apologetic so I won't go into detail); also an indication against embellishment tendencies they had.

How would we expect the changing theology to impact on the depiction of the crucifixion? I do not see why it would. On the either hand, changing from a new spiritual body to a physical resurrection in the old body would have a dramatic effect on the post resurrection accounts.

There is no virgin birth in John because it is not important in his theology. For John, Jesus was always the Son of God, so instead we see the logos thing. The progression here is about when Jesus became the Son of God, going further and further back in time from the Baptism in Mark, to his birth in Luke and Matthew and then the beginning of time in John. This is also why there is no divine voice proclaiming Jesus is the begotten son; that was fundamental to Mark's theology, as that was when Jesus became the Son of God, but irrelevant to John. Similarly, in John's theology, Jesus did not need to undergo a Transfiguration, and it may be that the Temptation likewise did not fit John's divine view of Jesus.

Why John missed various other events, I do not know. Do you? The absence of the ascension is certainly odd (but it is also missing from Mark).

So if we don’t see this embellishment in a consistent way in the gospels, it just becomes speculation on how you assume there is an embellished resurrection progression in the gospels. However, I do agree that there were editing omissions in order to solve certain problems and issues at the time (such as I pointed out in my response to BP) and even highlighting certain theological aspects for more emphasis. But embellishing scenes the way you believe is a whole different ballgame and requires much more evidence to support, at the very least consistency throughout the gospels that doesn’t exist.

You say I need I need much more evidence to support my theory, but what of your own theory that someone came back from the dead after three days? How much evidence should we demand for that? How do we explain that Mark, the first account, said Jesus would appear in Galilee, but the subsequent reports have Jesus walking around in Jerusalem?

At the end of the day, we do not know what happened. All we can do is consider the likelihood of each hypothesis given the evidence we have.

[seanD]

It would be very simplistic to suppose that the next author in the sequence added a further 10%, say, to each and every event in the narrative. Some parts will be embellished, some will not. I think the progression reflects the development in the beliefs as well as a response to critics of the time. It is not just a case of becoming more elaborate (besides the darkness and dead saints walking in Matthew, we do not really see that at all), but in reflecting a more elaborate theology.

At the time of Mark it was believed that Jesus was adopted by God at his baptistism (hence, he starts the narrative there), and resurrected in a new spiritual body (discussed more by Paul, than Mark), and Mark added to that the empty tomb.

For Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born the Son of God (hence they both added nativity narratives), and resurrected in his physical body. Luke goes to pains to establish this was a physical resurrection.

John went further, saying Jesus has always been the Son of God (hence the logos thing, rather than a nativity), and again was resurrected in his physical body.

It is also likely, it seems to me, that Matthew and Luke were working with what they had. Mark had, to a degree, set in stone the crucifixion narrative, but had left the resurrection accounts very vague, allowing them space to embellish. That said, we do see the progression in the development of Joseph of Arimathea, in the description of the tomb, is the treatment of Jesus' body.

At the end of the day we have four crucifixion accounts that are pretty similar, and four post-resurrection accounts that are wildly different. I think my scenario explains that better than yours, but perhaps you can give your own view on why it might be

I don't necessarily need evidence for my theory because my theory is not really a theory. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt as historical works. I believe they were not embellishing, but recording what the eyewitnesses reported (as per what Luke claims in the beginning). You would have to agree that they were recording events they at least wanted their audience to believe was actual history, therefore the onus is on you much more so to prove they were embellishing (essentially falsifying) events because then this becomes deception, and deception requires much more evidence to support, as it involves the actual integrity and character of the writers, not just one but four.

However, I did offer three points in my argument why I believe they were not embellishing. The event doesn’t have a rising Christ vision spectacle similar to other later gospel works. We don’t see a supernatural visual progression between the supposed early and later work (something we would expect of embellishers, as legends naturally evolve and get more fantastic – as you pointed out earlier about the anointing material). They don’t use Jesus to address any of the pertinent issues and conflicts of the early church that are expressed in some of the letters. The latter is much more detrimental to your theory because the theory assumes they were addressing current issues and solving problems within the church that required these embellishments.

You’re also making a lot of presuppositions. Putting aside the fact you must presuppose a chronological order in your theory from Paul to John (certainly possible but not impossible this order is incorrect), and that you must presuppose Mark’s original work really ended at 16:8 (it’s certainly not out of the question there was a part of his gospel that was lost), your theory is also reliant on mind reading. For example, the idea that Jesus being proclaimed Son of God was irrelevant to John because it showed that Jesus was adopted at baptism is pretty blatant question begging. I can just as equally assume John would have wanted that proclamation, or a similar proclamation just to confirm the declaration he makes in John 20:21 to his readers, but that doesn’t mean John had to have the same supposed intent for this miraculous event as you suppose Mark had. And yet this mind reading seems to be a major driving force of your theory.

The type of embellishment you imagine is also not necessary. For example, even if we suppose there was a need to prove Jesus was flesh still doesn’t make it necessary to suppose they were embellishing the events for this reason. It’s equally plausible they were merely highlighting actual events that underscored he was flesh. Mark may have abruptly ended his work not because the resurrection tradition was in some premature evolving stage (which seems absurd, as we not only could easily suppose he would just embellish appearances, but we know from Paul there was at least some sort of visual appearance to the apostles from a creed dating as early as a decade after the fact if not earlier), but because women were an embarrassment, which would explain why Mark claimed they told no one and abruptly ended his work there. Maybe Mark’s whole point to his audience was proving the insignificance of the women’s eyewitness account. I can also offer explanations why the appearance locations are as diverse as they are, such as I pointed out to BP about the Jerusalem/Galilee conflict that’s just as plausible and also doesn’t require an extensive embellishment assumption.

I’m expecting my rather longwinded post to be butchered into a million pieces in your next response, so I think I’ll end the discussion here.

[lilpixieofterror]

If a skeptic were to argue, "The earliest accounts were recorded decades later, therefore the accounts are not believable," then that skeptic would be a fool. And, to be sure, the woods are full of foolish skeptics. But, I've never known one to make just that argument.

You might want to ask Pixie why he is making a huge deal about the '40 year' thing and acting as though it is something to write about.

[The Pixie]

I don't necessarily need evidence for my theory because my theory is not really a theory. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt as historical works. I believe they were not embellishing, but recording what the eyewitnesses reported (as per what Luke claims in the beginning). You would have to agree that they were recording events they at least wanted their audience to believe was actual history, therefore the onus is on you much more so to prove they were embellishing (essentially falsifying) events because then this becomes deception, and deception requires much more evidence to support, as it involves the actual integrity and character of the writers, not just one but four.

This is just shifting the burden of proof. Your hypothesis is that Jesus was resurrected in his original body, that he was seen by the disciples several times over 40 days, and was then seen ascending to heaven. You can give them the benefit of the doubt all you want, but that does not magically improve the evidence.

Yes, they wanted people to believe the message in the narrative, and that is why they embellished them. They needed to counter claims the disciples had stolen the body, so it was only appropriate to add the guards to the narrative; it was not lying, not really, because the underlying message was the same, and what was important was convincing people of that. They were honest people doing what they thought was right.

However, I did offer three points in my argument why I believe they were not embellishing. The event doesn’t have a rising Christ vision spectacle similar to other later gospel works. We don’t see a supernatural visual progression between the supposed early and later work (something we would expect of embellishers, as legends naturally evolve and get more fantastic – as you pointed out earlier about the anointing material). They don’t use Jesus to address any of the pertinent issues and conflicts of the early church that are expressed in some of the letters. The latter is much more detrimental to your theory because the theory assumes they were addressing current issues and solving problems within the church that required these embellishments.

But they are not embellishing to add spectacle (well, for the most part; Matthew has the dead saits walking and the hours of darkness). They are embellishing as an aid to the apologetic, both to counter claims by critics and to reflect the developing theology.

What problems are you thinking expressed in early letters? I am not aware of any letters outside the canon from that time (i.e., the first century). Do you mean the dispute between Paul and the other disciples?

You’re also making a lot of presuppositions. Putting aside the fact you must presuppose a chronological order in your theory from Paul to John (certainly possible but not impossible this order is incorrect), and that you must presuppose Mark’s original work really ended at 16:8 (it’s certainly not out of the question there was a part of his gospel that was lost), your theory is also reliant on mind reading. For example, the idea that Jesus being proclaimed Son of God was irrelevant to John because it showed that Jesus was adopted at baptism is pretty blatant question begging. I can just as equally assume John would have wanted that proclamation, or a similar proclamation just to confirm the declaration he makes in John 20:21 to his readers, but that doesn’t mean John had to have the same supposed intent for this miraculous event as you suppose Mark had. And yet this mind reading seems to be a major driving force of your theory.

It is generally accepted in Biblical scholarship that Mark was writen first, and the verses after 16:8 were later additions, and that John was written last. If you want to debate these "presuppositions", I suggest you start another thread on the issue.

I accept that I am speculating about John with regards to Jesus being proclaimed Son of God. In what sense is this "begging the question"? How does it compare to your own hypothesis, which seems to be based on the assumption the resurrection happened as portrayed in the Bible to show that the resurrection happened as portrayed in the Bible? As I said before, we have here two hypotheses (among many); we should be considering which is more likely given the evidence we have.

The type of embellishment you imagine is also not necessary. For example, even if we suppose there was a need to prove Jesus was flesh still doesn’t make it necessary to suppose they were embellishing the events for this reason. It’s equally plausible they were merely highlighting actual events that underscored he was flesh. Mark may have abruptly ended his work not because the resurrection tradition was in some premature evolving stage (which seems absurd, as we not only could easily suppose he would just embellish appearances, but we know from Paul there was at least some sort of visual appearance to the apostles from a creed dating as early as a decade after the fact if not earlier), but because women were an embarrassment, which would explain why Mark claimed they told no one and abruptly ended his work there. Maybe Mark’s whole point to his audience was proving the insignificance of the women’s eyewitness account. I can also offer explanations why the appearance locations are as diverse as they are, such as I pointed out to BP about the Jerusalem/Galilee conflict that’s just as plausible and also doesn’t require an extensive embellishment assumption.

Sure. But again, we are trying to fit two competing hypotheses to the available evidence.

Another point I will throw in the hat. These verses from Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, indicate that at that time Jesus was considered human, which fits better with the earlier position of Mark that Jesus was adopted as Son of God, than it does with the later John, who has Jesus existing from the beginning of time.:

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead. He’s the first crop of the harvest[a] of those who have died. 21 Since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came through one too.

And here we see the Paul believed Jesus was raised in a new body, contradicting the claim in John that Jesus was resurrected in his original body, crucifixion wounds and all.

44 It’s a physical body when it’s put into the ground, but it’s raised as a spiritual body.
If there’s a physical body, there’s also a spiritual body.

This fits with my hypothesis. How does it work with yours?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

How is that, at all, less plausible? I'm actually inclined to agree with the historians who say that the discovery of the empty tomb by the women likely traces back to something actually historical. The progression of the gospel accounts of this pericope certainly seems to support such gradual embellishment of the legend. Mark's account tells us the women found the tomb empty except for a young man in a white robe. Around fifteen years later, Luke tells a similar story, except now it's two men in dazzling clothes who were terrifying to behold. Around that same time, Matthew recounts the tale, but instead of men, there is a great earthquake with an angel descending from heaven having an appearance like lightning and robes like snow. Years later, the tale that John recounts has Mary Magdalene finding two angels and Jesus himself at the empty tomb.

It is worth noting that this is exactly the sort of diverse, increasingly fantastic progression which you claimed that we should expect from tales which were receiving legendary embellishment.

(especially considering this was many years after the male apostolic authority was already firmly established)

I would quite ardently dispute this. As I mentioned, Paul mentions a host of female leaders in the church, in his epistles, including explicitly stating that one named Junia was "foremost amongst the apostles."

Do you think Paul was intentionally lying simply to preserve a credal statement? Are you saying that Paul actually knew that Mary Magdalene was the first to witness Jesus, but he lied to say that Peter was, instead, just because it was a creed?

So, now you seem to be agreeing with me. The stories which had passed to Luke didn't contain certain tales, so he didn't know about them to recount them. The stories passed to Matthew and John contained other tales, but not the ones Luke had heard. Each author simply recounted the stories which he had been told, and was ignorant of the others.

The gospel accounts are very mundane from the scenes we see in the later apocryphal works, which are the type of visual spectacle we would expect. The appearance in Acts is definitely the spectacle we would expect during the initial resurrection scenes (or visions or whatever), which makes it even more puzzling in this case why they left that type of spectacle out of the initial resurrection of Christ.

Once again, how can you possibly say that a man flying off into the sky or having fingers pushed through holes in his hands and side or magically filling nets with 153 massive fish are not the type of visual spectacle which we would expect?

[seanD]

This is just shifting the burden of proof. Your hypothesis is that Jesus was resurrected in his original body, that he was seen by the disciples several times over 40 days, and was then seen ascending to heaven. You can give them the benefit of the doubt all you want, but that does not magically improve the evidence.

Yes, they wanted people to believe the message in the narrative, and that is why they embellished them. They needed to counter claims the disciples had stolen the body, so it was only appropriate to add the guards to the narrative; it was not lying, not really, because the underlying message was the same, and what was important was convincing people of that. They were honest people doing what they thought was right.

But they are not embellishing to add spectacle (well, for the most part; Matthew has the dead saits walking and the hours of darkness). They are embellishing as an aid to the apologetic, both to counter claims by critics and to reflect the developing theology.

What problems are you thinking expressed in early letters? I am not aware of any letters outside the canon from that time (i.e., the first century). Do you mean the dispute between Paul and the other disciples?

It is generally accepted in Biblical scholarship that Mark was writen first, and the verses after 16:8 were later additions, and that John was written last. If you want to debate these "presuppositions", I suggest you start another thread on the issue.

I accept that I am speculating about John with regards to Jesus being proclaimed Son of God. In what sense is this "begging the question"? How does it compare to your own hypothesis, which seems to be based on the assumption the resurrection happened as portrayed in the Bible to show that the resurrection happened as portrayed in the Bible? As I said before, we have here two hypotheses (among many); we should be considering which is more likely given the evidence we have.

Sure. But again, we are trying to fit two competing hypotheses to the available evidence.

Another point I will throw in the hat. These verses from Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, indicate that at that time Jesus was considered human, which fits better with the earlier position of Mark that Jesus was adopted as Son of God, than it does with the later John, who has Jesus existing from the beginning of time.:

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead. He’s the first crop of the harvest[a] of those who have died. 21 Since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came through one too.

And here we see the Paul believed Jesus was raised in a new body, contradicting the claim in John that Jesus was resurrected in his original body, crucifixion wounds and all.

44 It’s a physical body when it’s put into the ground, but it’s raised as a spiritual body.
If there’s a physical body, there’s also a spiritual body.

This fits with my hypothesis. How does it work with yours?

A pre-existant Christ theology does not postdate John's gospel. Paul had a similar Christology to John's Christology. In fact, even skeptics like Ehrman recognize Paul's pre-existent Christ theology, so that's yet another flaw to your theory.

And what I meant by Mark's ending is that, yes, most scholars are pretty certain that the ending we see in standard bibles today was not the original ending in the Greek. What we don't know is why this was added. There are other early Markan manuscripts that had different endings than we have in our standard bible. Maybe Mark ended it at 16:8, but another theory that's certainly not out of the question is that Mark's ending was lost and these alternative endings were merely replacements. There are biblical scholars (such as Witherington) that do propose this idea. It's a theory that probably best explains the alternate endings between the Greek manuscripts. So if Mark really had an appearance in his work that was lost, what do you suppose that does to your progression theory? That's why I called it a presupposition supporting your theory.

Nevertheless, it's pretty absurd to argue that since Mark didn't include any resurrection appearances, this indicates that the resurrection appearance story was still in some sort of progressive premature stage. Is that what you're really arguing? Even if you believe Mark, or the tradition he used, was embellished, there's no reason not to assume there would have been at least some sort of resurrection appearance since we know this tradition was already in existence many years prior to Mark. Therefore, instead of supporting your theory that there was no resurrection appearance Mark could work with because it was "progressing," it's more logical Mark had other reasons for not including this appearance (assuming once again that his original work actually ended at 16:8).

[seanD]

H
Once again, how can you possibly say that a man flying off into the sky or having fingers pushed through holes in his hands and side or magically filling nets with 153 massive fish are not the type of visual spectacle which we would expect?

By mundane, I’m referring to two things about the resurrection: a) they are visually mundane in comparison to the spectacle of the later gospels and the way they illustrate his death and resurrection, which is what we would expect of fictional embellishment; and b) mundane relative to the acts and deeds of Jesus prior to the resurrection. In fact, the spectacle prior to the resurrection is actually more extraordinary (walking on water, the enunciation, calming the storm, glowing like an angelic being, raising the dead, toppling over crowds with his voice, et al.) than the post-resurrected Jesus. The resurrection is actually a regression in spectacle in this regard comparable to pre-resurrection events. This doesn’t gel well with the idea of embellishment. The resurrection, being the most important event of early Judeo-Christendom, should be represented as a spectacle climax of these traditions if we assume major embellishing was taking place or the post-resurrected Lord was merely an assortment of abstract spiritual visions.

[The Pixie]

A pre-existant Christ theology does not postdate John's gospel. Paul had a similar Christology to John's Christology. In fact, even skeptics like Ehrman recognize Paul's pre-existent Christ theology, so that's yet another flaw to your theory.

Interesting assertion. Care to back it up?

Arguing against that is this:

1 Cor 15:20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead. He’s the first crop of the harvest[a] of those who have died. 21 Since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came through one too.

Paul is saying here Jesus is the first of many. That makes sense if he is human and specially chosen by God. It does not make sense if Jesus is God incarnate (which would make him the farmer, not the first crop!). The resuirrection came through a human, not God incarnate.

If you want to argue I am wrong, please offer more than mere assertion.

And what I meant by Mark's ending is that, yes, most scholars are pretty certain that the ending we see in standard bibles today was not the original ending in the Greek. What we don't know is why this was added. There are other early Markan manuscripts that had different endings than we have in our standard bible. Maybe Mark ended it at 16:8, but another theory that's certainly not out of the question is that Mark's ending was lost and these alternative endings were merely replacements. There are biblical scholars (such as Witherington) that do propose this idea. It's a theory that probably best explains the alternate endings between the Greek manuscripts. So if Mark really had an appearance in his work that was lost, what do you suppose that does to your progression theory? That's why I called it a presupposition supporting your theory.

That would depend on what the ending was. If it described Jesus appearing as a bright light, that would support my theory, and dash yours. Looks to me like you have your own presuppositions here.

Nevertheless, it's pretty absurd to argue that since Mark didn't include any resurrection appearances, this indicates that the resurrection appearance story was still in some sort of progressive premature stage. Is that what you're really arguing? Even if you believe Mark, or the tradition he used, was embellished, there's no reason not to assume there would have been at least some sort of resurrection appearance since we know this tradition was already in existence many years prior to Mark. Therefore, instead of supporting your theory that there was no resurrection appearance Mark could work with because it was "progressing," it's more logical Mark had other reasons for not including this appearance (assuming once again that his original work actually ended at 16:8).

I think Mark believed there was a resurrection appearance. He certainly alludes to it, and I am not suggesting that that is something he has added. However, he alludes to an appearance (or perhaps several) in Galilee. Subsequent embellishments add the Jerusalem appearances. This is a contradiction that is a big problem for your hypothesis, and yet you have dodged that issue. Why is that seanD?

[Doug Shaver]

You might want to ask Pixie why he is making a huge deal about the '40 year' thing and acting as though it is something to write about.

His point, it seems to me after re-reading the comment you were responding to, was that the chronology is evidence against eyewitness authorship.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Again, how can you possibly claim that a man flying into the sky or walking around with holes in his hands and side or magically conjuring 153 massive fish are "visually mundane?" Even in comparison to other Resurrection accounts, or the pre-crucifixion accounts of Jesus, there is nothing "visually mundane" about such scenes.

I actually agree with SeanD, somewhat, in this respect. Passages like Philippians 2 seem to imply that Paul had some sort of Christology involving Christ as a pre-existent being.

That said, in my humblest of opinions (as well as the more credentialed opinion of Ehrman, who SeanD mentioned) even this pre-existent Christology which Paul held was likely far closer to the views of the arch-heretic Arius than to the Trinitarian view which eventually became orthodox. Ehrman argues that Paul viewed Christ as an angel which pre-existed his human birth, and that Paul considered Christ divine in a manner quite similar to the way earlier Jewish literature had depicted Wisdom as divine, or the manner in which Philo Iudaeus depicted the Logos as divine, despite their subservience to Yahweh.

[Scrawly]

Ehrman argues that Paul viewed Christ as an angel which pre-existed his human birth, and that Paul considered Christ divine in a manner quite similar to the way earlier Jewish literature had depicted Wisdom as divine, or the manner in which Philo Iudaeus depicted the Logos as divine, despite their subservience to Yahweh.

Robert M. Bowman Jr. makes the following comment in his Amazon review on Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee":

"Ehrman labors to defend the premise that the apostle Paul thought Jesus was the chief angel come in the flesh. He has one proof text for this claim—Galatians 4:14, where Paul reminds the Galatians that when he visited them they welcomed him “as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.” Ehrman takes this statement to mean that Jesus is an (or the) angel of God. However, it is far more likely that Paul’s language is progressive or ascending: the Galatians treated him as if he were an angel of God, and even as if he were Christ Jesus himself (for similar constructions in Greek, see Psalm 34:14 LXX; 84:14 LXX; Song of Sol. 1:5; Isa. 53:2; Ezek. 19:10). Earlier in the same passage, Galatians 4:4-6 shows that Paul thought of the Son and the Spirit as two divine persons sent by God the Father—one of numerous proto-Trinitarian passages in Paul."

[The Pixie]

In post #47 you made the claim:

They don’t use Jesus to address any of the pertinent issues and conflicts of the early church that are expressed in some of the letters. The latter is much more detrimental to your theory because the theory assumes they were addressing current issues and solving problems within the church that required these embellishments.

I challenged you to support this, and I note that you have not done so. Have you now abandoned this?

[lilpixieofterror]

His point, it seems to me after re-reading the comment you were responding to, was that the chronology is evidence against eyewitness authorship.

Is 40 years within the lifetime of humans, even thousands of years ago?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Robert M. Bowman Jr. makes the following comment in his Amazon review on Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee":

"Ehrman labors to defend the premise that the apostle Paul thought Jesus was the chief angel come in the flesh. He has one proof text for this claim—Galatians 4:14, where Paul reminds the Galatians that when he visited them they welcomed him “as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.” Ehrman takes this statement to mean that Jesus is an (or the) angel of God. However, it is far more likely that Paul’s language is progressive or ascending: the Galatians treated him as if he were an angel of God, and even as if he were Christ Jesus himself (for similar constructions in Greek, see Psalm 34:14 LXX; 84:14 LXX; Song of Sol. 1:5; Isa. 53:2; Ezek. 19:10). Earlier in the same passage, Galatians 4:4-6 shows that Paul thought of the Son and the Spirit as two divine persons sent by God the Father—one of numerous proto-Trinitarian passages in Paul."

And, for what it's worth, I rather disagree with Bowman, in this regard. Firstly, I think he is quite clearly misrepresenting Ehrman's position by pretending that Gal 4:14 is the only reason Ehrman holds to this view of Pauline Christology. Secondly, there are plenty of constructions of the "as... even as..." form which support Ehrman's view, as well-- a number of which, Ehrman notes. Finally, I don't see how Bowman thinks his statement about Gal 4:4-6 contradicts what Ehrman states. Ehrman explicitly agrees that Paul likely believed that the Son was a divine person sent by God the Father.

[The Pixie]

Is 40 years within the lifetime of humans, even thousands of years ago?

Contrary to what you would like to think I was saying, my point was actually there were eye witnesses alive when Mark was written (though Mark was not one of them).

"Most Biblical scholars consider Mark to be the first gospel written, and that was about 40 years after the event, and not by an eye witness (even assuming Mark was the author). The others were likely to have been written after all the eye witnesses were dead. "