How to respond to this?

[Scrawly]

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.

Can you give me a few examples?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Can you give me a few examples?

Slight error on my part-- that's what I get from working off memory rather than double checking with my sources, directly. The construction in question is actually "but as... as..." rather than "as... even as..."

Still, Ehrman lists 1 Corinthians 3:1 as an example, "Brothers, I was not able to speak to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ." Here, Paul is not saying that infants are not fleshly people. Quite the opposite: he is specifying precisely which type of fleshly people it is to whom he is referring.

Another example which Ehrman cites is 2 Cor 2:17: "For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ." Again, Paul is not saying that those "commissioned by God" are distinct from "men of sincerity," but is rather clarifying that the particular "men of sincerity" about whom he is speaking are men "commissioned by God."

Similarly, Ehrman argues (and cites other scholars, Gieschen and Barrett, who also argue) that the "but as... as.." construct in Gal 4:14 is not creating a distinction between its two objects, but rather is explicitly intended to unite the two objects: "and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus." As such, it would seem that the particular "angel of God" about whom Paul is speaking is Christ Jesus.

[Scrawly]

Slight error on my part-- that's what I get from working off memory rather than double checking with my sources, directly. The construction in question is actually "but as... as..." rather than "as... even as..."

Still, Ehrman lists 1 Corinthians 3:1 as an example, "Brothers, I was not able to speak to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ." Here, Paul is not saying that infants are not fleshly people. Quite the opposite: he is specifying precisely which type of fleshly people it is to whom he is referring.

Another example which Ehrman cites is 2 Cor 2:17: "For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ." Again, Paul is not saying that those "commissioned by God" are distinct from "men of sincerity," but is rather clarifying that the particular "men of sincerity" about whom he is speaking are men "commissioned by God."

Similarly, Ehrman argues (and cites other scholars, Gieschen and Barrett, who also argue) that the "but as... as.." construct in Gal 4:14 is not creating a distinction between its two objects, but rather is explicitly intended to unite the two objects: "and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus." As such, it would seem that the particular "angel of God" about whom Paul is speaking is Christ Jesus.

I think I like Bowman's explanation better:

Finally (though obviously much more could be said), 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 [hōs] an angel of God, as [hōs] Christ Jesus.” It is just barely possible that here angelon theou means “the angel of the Lord” and that Paul is equating Christ Jesus with that mysterious figure, who in the Old Testament is sometimes treated as identical to 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. Ehrman claims that the construction requires an equating of the two referents, but this is incorrect. For example, in Psalm 35:14 (34:14 LXX) the same construction appears in the statement that the psalmist treated others “as a friend, as our brother” (hōs plēsion hōs adelphon hēmeteron; for other examples see Ps. 83:13 [84:14 LXX]; Song of Sol. 1:5; Isa. 53:2; Ezek. 19:10). Earlier in the same passage in Galatians, Paul has just spoken of two divine persons sent from heaven by God:

“But when the fullness of time had come,
God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
to redeem those who were under the law,
so that we might receive adoption as sons.
And because you are sons,
God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,
crying, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Gal. 4:4-6 ESV)

The “angel of the Lord” in the Old Testament is never called God’s “son,” and Paul never clearly calls Jesus an angel. It therefore is an uphill climb to make a case for Ehrman’s view that Paul held to a Christology in which Jesus was an angel come in the flesh. But without this piece of the puzzle, Ehrman’s case for an evolution (albeit a very rapid evolution!) of Christology from an exaltation model to an incarnation model has a glaring missing link.

source: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blo...rent-response/

[Scrawly]

I would also like to add Michael Kruger's brief response to the Christ as angel view:

"..Each of Ehrman's examples of supposed semi-divine figures cannot be addressed here, but he bases his argument primarily on angels, particularly the mysterious "angel of the Lord" phenomenon in the OT. However, the idea that early Christians saw Jesus in the category of an angel runs contrary to numerous other lines of evidence. For one, Jesus is clearly distinguished from the angels (Mark 1:13; Matt 4:11), given Lordship over the angels (Matt 4:6, 26:53; Luke 4:10; Mark 13:27), and exalted in a place above the angels (Heb 1:5, 13). In addition, Jesus is accorded both worship (Matt 28:17; Luke 24:52) and the role of Creator (1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Phil 2:10-11)--two key marks of God's unique divine identity within Judaism--whereas angels are never portrayed as creating the world, nor as worthy of worship (Col 2:18; Rev 19:10, 22:9).

Ehrman attempts to overcome these clear restrictions on angel worship by flipping them around to his advantage: "We know that some Jews thought that it was right to worship angels in no small part because a number of our surviving texts insist that it not be done. You don't get laws prohibiting activities that are never performed" (pp.54-55, emphasis his). Yes, you don't get laws prohibiting activities that are never performed; but at the same time you can't use laws prohibiting activities as evidence that those activities actually represent a religion's views! It would be like using the Ten Commandments (which are filled with prohibitions) to argue that ancient Judaism was a religion that embraced idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, adultery, murder, coveting, and so on. Again, Ehrman is using what is, at best, a condemned and fringe activity (angel worship) as characteristic of first-century Judaism. That simply doesn't work as a model for how early (Jewish) Christians would have viewed Jesus."

- See more at: http://www.reformation21.org/article...d-a-review.php

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I think I like Bowman's explanation better:

I see a few problems with Bowman's argument. The first, as I mentioned, is that he is blatantly misrepresenting Ehrman by pretending that Gal 4:14 is the only evidence which he cites in evidence of his view of Pauline Christology.

However, even if that weren't an issue, I really don't see how Bowman's examples disagree with Ehrman's. The example from LXX Psalm 34:14 seems to be perfectly in line with Ehrman's assessment. The same goes for LXX Psalm 82:13, Isaiah 53:2, and Ezekiel 19:10. The only example Bowman gives which doesn't accord with Ehrman's reading is Song of Solomon 1:5.

Furthermore, the fact that the Hebrew Scriptures do not call the angel of the Lord the "son" of God is not really all that relevant, considering Ehrman never claims that Paul derived the appellation "Son of God" from the Christ's angelic nature. Quite the contrary, in fact, Ehrman links the phrase "son of God" with Israel and very human anointed leaders.

[seanD]

In post #47 you made the claim:

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

I've abandoned it because you're just not that well-informed on the subject, no offense. I'm pretty much just wasting my time.

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.

I didn't just say visually mundane. I clarified it in the post you quoted -- compared to...

What I bolded is pretty accurate. Paul’s Christology is not only similar to John’s, but both similarly reflect the divine wisdom expressions found in ancient Jewish literature, such as Proverbs, book of Wisdom, and the Sirach much more so than the other gospel writers. However, Paul’s Christology goes further than this. For example, Paul refers to Christ whenever he quotes scripture from the LXX that is directly referring to Yahweh, and uses the substitute for the tetragrammaton (kuvrio) interchangeably between God and Christ, as Bauckham points out…

Paul's christological interpretation of scriptural passages about YHWH, taking the name YHWH (kuvrio" in LXX) to refer to Jesus Christ, is an important phenomenon that has often been under-estimated both in extent and in significance.

…

How are these phenomena of Paul's usage to be understood? We may quickly
discount two possible interpretations: (1) It is not plausible that where Paul takes the
kuvrio" of the LXX to refer to Jesus he is not aware that kuvrio" is functioning as a
reverential substitute21 for the divine name. Paul certainly knew the Hebrew text as
well as the Greek, but in fact even a Greek-speaking Jewish Christian who knew the
Jewish Scriptures only in Greek could not have been unaware of the function of
kuvrio" as representing the tetragrammaton. In many manuscripts of the LXX what
appeared in the written text was not kuvrio" but the Hebrew letters of the
tetragrammaton or a Greek equivalent (PIPI) or a Greek transliteration (IAW).
Readers substituted kuvrio" in reading (whether to themselves, since ancient readers
usually pronounced the words when reading alone, or in public reading). When
kuvrio" was written in manuscripts as the substitute for YHWH, it was usually
differentiated from other uses of kuvrio" by its lack of the article, indicating that it
was being used as a proper name. In a phrase such as 'the name of the Lord' this is
particularly clear, since its Greek form in the Septuagint (to; o[noma kurivou) breaks
the normal rule that in such a construction either both nouns should have the article or
both nouns should lack it.

source

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I would also like to add Michael Kruger's brief response to the Christ as angel view:

"Again, Ehrman is using what is, at best, a condemned and fringe activity (angel worship) as characteristic of first-century Judaism. That simply doesn't work as a model for how early (Jewish) Christians would have viewed Jesus."

- See more at: http://www.reformation21.org/article...d-a-review.php

This is a blatant Straw Man. Ehrman never claims that angel worship is representative of first-century Judaism as a whole. He only states that there did exist Jews who worshiped angels, and that it seems that such angelic worship (heterodox though it may have been) was not entirely rare. We can tell this due to the strength and repetition of the proscriptions against it, in a very similar manner as we can tell that Arianism was a widespread heresy in the 5th Century AD by the numerous proscriptions against it.

If there did, in fact, exist Jews who worshiped angels, this rebuts the claim that no Jew would have worshiped Jesus if they believed him to be an angel. This is all that Ehrman was attempting to state.

[Scrawly]

Finally, I will just add a few remarks by Larry Hurtado:

"As a final criticism, Ehrman posits that the key to Paul’s Christology is that he thought of Jesus as an (or the) angel (of God/the Lord). That, says Ehrman, explains how Paul could ascribe “pre-existence” to Jesus, and how, as a devout Jew, he could countenance worshipping Jesus. As the key basis for this notion, Ehrman invokes a peculiar reading of Galatians 4:14, where Paul says that in his initial visit the Galatians received him “as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.” Ehrman insists that this is to be read as a flat appositive construction, in which “an angel of God” = “Christ Jesus.” But this isn’t actually as compelling a claim as he thinks. Even Gieschen (on whose work Ehrman relies here) presents this reading of the construction as only a distinct “possibility.” And most scholars (myself included) don’t think it really works. The grammar certainly doesn’t require it, and it seems more reasonable to take it as a kind of stair-step statement, “angel of God” and “Christ Jesus” as ascending categories.

Moreover, Ehrman fails to consider other evidence that Paul distinguished between Jesus and angels, as for example in Romans 8:38-39, where Paul lyrically asserts that “nothing in all creation,” including angels, can separate believers from God’s love in “Christ Jesus our Lord.” Or note 1 Cor. 6:3, where Paul asserts that, on the basis of their redemption in Christ, believers will judge angels (in the eschatological consummation). In short, Paul’s Christology seems to place Jesus in a category of his own, superior and distinct from angels."

Source: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2...od-per-ehrman/

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I didn't just say visually mundane. I clarified it in the post you quoted -- compared to...

I acknowledged that, when I said, "Even in comparison to other Resurrection accounts, or the pre-crucifixion accounts of Jesus, there is nothing 'visually mundane' about such scenes."

What I bolded is pretty accurate. Paul’s Christology is not only similar to John’s, but both similarly reflect the divine wisdom expressions found in ancient Jewish literature, such as Proverbs, book of Wisdom, and the Sirach much more so than the other gospel writers. However, Paul’s Christology goes further than this. For example, Paul refers to Christ whenever he quotes scripture from the LXX that is directly referring to Yahweh, and uses the substitute for the tetragrammaton (kuvrio) interchangeably between God and Christ, as Bauckham points out…

I'm not sure I believe Bauckham's assertion that "Paul certainly knew the Hebrew text as well as the Greek," but I think I can agree with the thrust of the claim-- that Paul understood such uses of κύριος in the LXX to refer to the name of God.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Finally, I will just add a few remarks by Larry Hurtado:

"As a final criticism, Ehrman posits that the key to Paul’s Christology is that he thought of Jesus as an (or the) angel (of God/the Lord). That, says Ehrman, explains how Paul could ascribe “pre-existence” to Jesus, and how, as a devout Jew, he could countenance worshipping Jesus. As the key basis for this notion, Ehrman invokes a peculiar reading of Galatians 4:14, where Paul says that in his initial visit the Galatians received him “as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.” Ehrman insists that this is to be read as a flat appositive construction, in which “an angel of God” = “Christ Jesus.” But this isn’t actually as compelling a claim as he thinks. Even Gieschen (on whose work Ehrman relies here) presents this reading of the construction as only a distinct “possibility.” And most scholars (myself included) don’t think it really works. The grammar certainly doesn’t require it, and it seems more reasonable to take it as a kind of stair-step statement, “angel of God” and “Christ Jesus” as ascending categories.

Moreover, Ehrman fails to consider other evidence that Paul distinguished between Jesus and angels, as for example in Romans 8:38-39, where Paul lyrically asserts that “nothing in all creation,” including angels, can separate believers from God’s love in “Christ Jesus our Lord.” Or note 1 Cor. 6:3, where Paul asserts that, on the basis of their redemption in Christ, believers will judge angels (in the eschatological consummation). In short, Paul’s Christology seems to place Jesus in a category of his own, superior and distinct from angels."

Source: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2...od-per-ehrman/

I don't think Hurtado's objections, here, really work. In each of these cases, Paul is discussing a Christ which has already been exalted above all others-- which, in Paul's view, seems to have come after the incarnation. He is not discussing the being that pre-existed Jesus' human form.

[Scrawly]

I don't think Hurtado's objections, here, really work. In each of these cases, Paul is discussing a Christ which has already been exalted above all others-- which, in Paul's view, seems to have come after the incarnation. He is not discussing the being that pre-existed Jesus' human form.

What about the ancient "hymn" in Philippians 2 where Paul (or those who originally formed this hymn) combined an incarnation view with an exaltation view? As Kruger notes: "One might think this is tremendous evidence that the exaltation and incarnation categories are not mutually exclusive after all, but that each of them simply offer a perspective on the whole--some Christians prefer to emphasize the former, and others the latter. This seems particularly plausible given that both views appear in the same passage by the same author (whether Paul or the author of the earlier tradition). But, incredibly, Ehrman will have none of this. Instead, he understands the combination of both views as evidence of a "transitional Christology" (p.266). In other words, he views it as just an "in between" stage in his developmental Christology where two (supposedly mutually exclusive) Christological views just happened to be found in the same passage.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

What about the ancient "hymn" in Philippians 2 where Paul (or those who originally formed this hymn) combined an incarnation view with an exaltation view? As Kruger notes: "One might think this is tremendous evidence that the exaltation and incarnation categories are not mutually exclusive after all, but that each of them simply offer a perspective on the whole--some Christians prefer to emphasize the former, and others the latter. This seems particularly plausible given that both views appear in the same passage by the same author (whether Paul or the author of the earlier tradition). But, incredibly, Ehrman will have none of this. Instead, he understands the combination of both views as evidence of a "transitional Christology" (p.266). In other words, he views it as just an "in between" stage in his developmental Christology where two (supposedly mutually exclusive) Christological views just happened to be found in the same passage.

Again, I don't think Kruger is really representing Ehrman's position accurately, here. He seems to think that Ehrman believes that exaltation Christology disappeared in order to make room for Paul's transitional Christology, which in turn disappeared in order to make room for incarnation Christology.

Quite the contrary, Ehrman states that he believes that all three of these Christologies existed simultaneously in different communities, but that exaltation developed before the transitional Christology came onto the scene, and that the transitional Christology developed before incarnation-sans-exaltation came onto the scene. A good analogy might be found in language: European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese both exist simultaneously, even though European Portuguese undoubtedly developed earlier.

[Scrawly]

Again, I don't think Kruger is really representing Ehrman's position accurately, here. He seems to think that Ehrman believes that exaltation Christology disappeared in order to make room for Paul's transitional Christology, which in turn disappeared in order to make room for incarnation Christology.

Quite the contrary, Ehrman states that he believes that all three of these Christologies existed simultaneously in different communities, but that exaltation developed before the transitional Christology came onto the scene, and that the transitional Christology developed before incarnation-sans-exaltation came onto the scene. A good analogy might be found in language: European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese both exist simultaneously, even though European Portuguese undoubtedly developed earlier.

So when Ehrman examines the Christological view of any given author, does he believe it contradicts another author's Christological view? Or does he believe we are merely seeing limited perspectives that are not mutually exclusive after all, but rather simply a perspective on the whole?

[seanD]

I acknowledged that, when I said, "Even in comparison to other Resurrection accounts, or the pre-crucifixion accounts of Jesus, there is nothing 'visually mundane' about such scenes."

I'm not sure I believe Bauckham's assertion that "Paul certainly knew the Hebrew text as well as the Greek," but I think I can agree with the thrust of the claim-- that Paul understood such uses of κύριος in the LXX to refer to the name of God.

Why would you question the idea that Paul knew Hebrew scripture when he was a pharisee of the first century? That's a very odd thing to say.

The only post-resurrection miracle illustration that can stand equivalent to the visual spectacle I'm referring to is the ascension. But Matthew and John don't include this miracle. Moreover, even Luke's ascension itself is mundane in comparison to other saints in ancient literature, such as Elijah being swooped up to heaven in a flaming chariot, or when John ascends into heaven in the book of Revelation, or the spectacle of Christ's ascension described in the Ascension of Isaiah and the gospel of Bartholomew, or even Stephen's vision of Jesus standing next to the throne of God in Acts. Luke's ascension is either strangely a visual regression in comparison, or Luke's ascension is an actual historical event without the embellishment we've come to expect from this other literature.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So when Ehrman examines the Christological view of any given author, does he believe it contradicts another author's Christological view? Or does he believe we are merely seeing limited perspectives that are not mutually exclusive after all, but rather simply a perspective on the whole?

When an author strongly displays an exaltation Christology without any indication or evidence that the author subscribes to-- or is even aware of-- incarnation Christology (for example, the author of Mark), Ehrman would see this in contrast to the view he ascribes to Paul. He doesn't make any claim that such views are necessarily theologically contradictory or unable to be harmonized. He simply sees them as different.