The Life of Jesus film crew has gained rare access to an archaeological find that cements historical evidence early Christians worshiped Jesus as divine.
Dr John Dickson, the series’ host and co-founder of the Centre for Public Christianity, will guide viewers through the remains of an ancient prayer hall unearthed at Megiddo in central Israel.
“The inscriptions on the mosaic floor are remarkable,” Dr Dickson says.
“One of them names a benefactor called Gaianus who is described as a centurion. Another mentions a woman called Akeptous who ”˜”¦offered this table in memorial of the God Jesus Christ’.”
I don’t really expect the revisionists to allow their arguments to be affected by facts, however. The Creeds are clearly supported by the preaching of the Apostles, that is, the New Testament, no matter how much some people would like it not to be so.
Very exciting! However, for the orthodox Christian it’s a “water found to be wet” headline. 😉
Your headline is wishful thinking, Kendall. The inscriptions on the mosaic floor are thought to date to (perhaps) as early as the late second century. OK: some 150 years after Jesus’ death, there were people who thought he was divine. That’s not news, and in any case it hardly “backs Jesus divinity.”
(As I’ve noted before, we can gain some interesting insights into the earliest beliefs of the church by studying what the apostles supposedly preached immediately after the phenomena we call the Resurrection. If we’re to believe Acts, it’s abundantly clear that the apostles regarded Jesus as a mortal. They thought he was a special mortal, to be sure: in their minds, his resurrection proved that he had been designated by God to return Real Soon Now as Israel’s liberator. [Evidently they were wrong about that.] But there’s nothing in their reported early preaching that even hints they thought Jesus was God Incarnate. The standard orthodox response is that it took the church awhile to come to that conclusion. OK, fine: then the conclusion is far from self-evident — and it’s not at all unreasonable for others to conclude otherwise.)
D. C. Toedt (#3)
We actually have Paul calling Jesus “Lord” – the same Greek word that the Septuagint (Paul’s bible) uses for “YHWH”.
We also have the prologue to John (written within the first century of Jesus’ resurrection) which claims “and the Word was God” and “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
Both of these are strong evidence that early Christians believed in the divinity of Jesus.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Dr. Tighe: What do you know of this find? Have you more information?
I think we may reasonably discard Mr. Roedt’s comments above. The contributions suggest that to the members of this congregation, the knowledge of Christ as divine and worthy of worship must have been of long standing. That is, if the inscriptions are properly dated 230, so long before Constantine, then we must assume that the attitudes of the congregation are not of recent origin, that these inscriptions are not the result of novelty and social ephemera. That such a work was made indicates long established attitudes, for it will take generations for gentiles to be – not just initiated into – but assimilated into so complex a belief. The inscriptions strongly implyh such an assimilation. Nor do people invest in such art work for a mere whim. To expect that such attitudes require a century for their propagation and assimilation is a high probability guess. Circumstantial evidence for “long standing?” Of course, but you know Henry Thoreau’s comment about some circumstantial evidence. This is impressive evidence. Larry
Sorry, D. C., you’re wrong. The Christological hymn that Paul quotes in Phillippians 2 cites Isaiah 45: 23, a passage that in its original context applies to Yahweh, and clearly applies it to Jesus in Phil 2:10-11. This is a consistent phenonemenon throughout the New Testament. The apostolic writers regularly quote OT passages applying in the original context to the one God, and then reapply them to Jesus. Phillippians was probably written around AD 61. Acts was written somewhat later–most scholars suggest after 70 AD, but John A. T. Robinson (no arch-conservative) argued that it was written while Paul was still alive.
The early Christians clearly believed from a very early date that Jesus was divine, i.e., God incarnate.
This is an interesting find, but I don’t really see how it is anything that special for those familiar with Church History. Irenaeus, Ignatius, Justin, Novatian, Hippolytus, Origen, etc, all use the word “theos” for Jesus, and they lived around the time (or even before) this inscription was made. Sure there are some uniformed skeptics (and folks like Jehovah’s Witnesses) out there who claim that Constantine invented a divine Jesus, but we have plenty of evidence already that shows this to be false. Don’t get me wrong, this is an interesting find, and is even more evidence the early Christians thought Jesus divine, but that it calls Jesus “God” seems natural because a lot of writers at the time did.
David Bennett is correct: the witness of the Church Fathers is consistent that Jesus is God. The problem is that too few people on either side of the debate consider the Church Fathers to be of any account.
I am familiar with the JW’s idea that the Church Fathers deny the deity of Christ, [url=http://www.vulcanhammer.org/unusual/mlmg]and show that their claims are spurious here[/url].
Has the Jesus Seminar a pictorial division yet? Facts to settled opinion are rather like gnats when fishing or flies to picnic food. Merely annoying. They get in the way of the “fun”.
Philip Snyder [#4] and William Witt [#6], what Paul allegedly had to say about Jesus’ divinity ca. AD 61, and “John” even later than that, is of no consequence to what the apostles actually preached (supposedly) at Pentecost and shortly afterwards ca. AD 30. If you believe Acts correctly recounts their preaching, you have to face the fact that they regarded Jesus as a man designated for great things, period. (If you think Acts got it wrong on that point, then anything else said in Acts or Luke would likewise be fair game for critical scrutiny.)
Philip Snyder [#4], I don’t think you get very far with the usual argument that Paul called Jesus by the title of kyrios (the Greek word used in the Septuagint for YHWH). In Col. 4.1 Paul uses the plural kyrioi in addressing slaveowners: “Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.” [NIV] On Navy aircraft carriers, the title “boss” is held by the senior officer who is the head of the Air Department; the same title is also held by Bruce Springsteen, but that doesn’t make him a senior naval officer.
I think Jewish audiences got it when Peter said that Jesus was Lord and Christ. Act 2:36. It seems to me that the reason this is the usual argument is that it is obvious.
D.C. [#10]: What do you make of the Gospel of John?
Folks, don’t argue with a determined non-believer and skeptic.
Reappraising New Testament scholars regularly question the reliability of the Act of the Apostles. Why, then, do sermon snippets from Acts become so probative when they support the theories of 20th century debunkers?
Why are they more important than passages like John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one”), John 8:58 (“before Abraham was, I am”), and much more?
And what about Titus 2:13 (“while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ”)? Even if you regard Titus as post-Pauline, doesn’t it represent significant evidence of what the first century church believed and taught?
“Folks, don’t argue with a determined non-believer and skeptic”
—Br. Michael [#13]
Why not? D.C. may be a skeptic, but I take issue with branding him a “determined non-believer.” He evidently believes less than many of us do, but that does not in itself make him a non-Christian or demonstrate that he is impervious to reason.
In any event, part of Kendall’s declared purpose for T19 is to encourage reasoned, respectful debate between reasserters and reappraisers. D.C. is acting in that spirit; you are not. If you can’t bear this thread, you don’t need to read it.
Let’s remember Titus 1:9:
“[A bishop] must have a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in accordance with the teaching, so that he may be able both to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.”
Guys, Jim McNaughton told the NY Times that there is NO debate within the Episcopal Church about the divinity of Jesus or that he was the Son of God. Did’nt you get the memo? 🙂
15, DC has admitted that he is a non-believer. Do I really need to repost his statements of non-belief?
[blockquote] 32. DC, this is a follow on to my # 16:
For you to believe you have set a standard of proof so high that 2,000-year-old evidence will never, ever under any circumstances satisfy. Maybe you can tell us what standard of proof you would accept and whether any evidence existing today, or ever, would meet that standard?
Comment by Br. Michael, FOCD — 11/7/2004 @ 7:59 pm
37. Br. Michael (# 32), unfortunately I can’t speculate as to what it would take to convince me of any of the following, which I understand to be key elements of what the orthodox insist one must believe to be a Christian:
(1) that Adam and Eve ever existed;
(2) that Adam and Eve were perfect and “sinlessâ€;
(3) that because of Adam and Eve’s individual disobedience, God decided to punish their descendants by making them subject to pain and death;
(4) that man’s sinfulness was so great that only the death and resurrection of a God-made-man would suffice to overcome it;
(5) that Jesus of Nazareth was born without a biological human father;
(6) that Jesus was God Incarnate;
(7) that the actual Jesus, restored to life after his crucifixion, appeared to his followers singly and en masse, in the latter case with the followers seeing and hearing the same things at the same times;
(8) that Jesus will return as ruler of the world to usher in God’s reign.
I try live my life unafraid of the truth, whatever it turns out to be, and whatever consequences might result. For good or ill, I cannot for the life of me grasp how any of the above points (among others) could be true. I’ve never been able to adopt the mindset of whoever said “I believe because it is absurd.â€
Comment by D. C. — 11/8/2004 @ 7:23 pm
45. DC, your 37. So can you articulate what makes you a Christian?
Comment by Br. Michael, FOCD — 11/10/2004 @ 8:03 am
As of 11/12/04 this is the last posting and DC has not responded.[/blockquote]
Irenaeus [#10, 14], I take the Fourth Gospel with a grain of salt. To my eye it reads more like a historical novel, written by someone with an agenda to advance — and perhaps an axe to grind, namely the primacy of the Beloved Disciple, as well possibly as some scores to settle, viz., with Peter and Thomas — than it does a history.
——————–
As for Titus 2:13, I know very little of Greek, but the text in my Greek-English interlinear New Testament seems to make more sense if we start reading at the beginning of the sentence [2.11] and render it as: “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all, … while we wait for the blessed hope and the appearing of him who is [1] the manifestation of God’s glory and [2] our Savior, Jesus Christ.”
The passage seems to say that to Paul, Jesus the Anointed One (christos), whose return the church was eagerly awaiting, was metaphorically the grace of God and the manifestation of his glory. It’d be an enormous stretch to think that Paul’s figures of speech meant he thought Jesus WAS God. (If he did think that, it’s not at all clear why we should assume he was correct.) By analogy, suppose I were to write a letter to my widowed father-in-law, mentioning that my wife was the manifestation of all that was good about her late mother. It’d be a mistake for a future reader to conclude that I believed my wife was her mother. By the same token, Titus 2.13 doesn’t provide strong support for the notion that Paul believed Jesus to be God.
(Thanks for the kind words in #15, BTW.)
Br. Michael [#18], I summarized my own Christian beliefs in a blog posting a few years back: “So Just What Do You Believe, Dad?“
Br. Michael, don’t forget to note DC is also an Episcopalian in good standing. Nothing, nothing, can change that. Believe anything or nothing. See Katherine Schori’s NPR interview where she testily denies
that DC is anything more than part of the “Diversity” you are meant to worship.
[blockquote]Philip Snyder [#4] and William Witt [#6], what Paul allegedly had to say about Jesus’ divinity ca. AD 61, and “John†even later than that, is of no consequence to what the apostles actually preached (supposedly) at Pentecost and shortly afterwards ca. AD 30.[/blockquote]
D.C., I refer you to my earlier point. You have cited a document (Acts) written in the 60-70’s or later AD to establish that the earliest church did not have a high Christology. I cited Phillippians (an earlier document than Acts on any reading) to show that before Acts was written early Christians were already thoroughly committed to the full deity of Christ. Insofar as textual evidence shows that Paul was citing an even earlier Christ-hymn, we can be certain that Christians prior to the early 60’s were firmly committed to the full deity of Christ.
Uncritical readings of the New Testament (both conservative and revisionist) often do not appreciate the full implications of the fact that Paul’s writings are the earliest New Testament documents we have, and that Paul’s Christology and soteriology precedes the synoptic gospels. The synoptics presume this early Christology and soteriology throughout (as is evident in the very first verse of Mark’s gospel — the earliest). Was there a development from a very early Christology that could be read as adoptionist? Perhaps. Scholars believe that Rom 1:4 cites an early Christian “creed” in which Jesus is “declared to be the Son of God” by his resurrection. But, if so, such a Christology would have had to have been very early indeed, because it had already been superseded by a completely incarnational christology by the time that Paul was writing his letters, a matter of a mere two decades. Paul himself saw no tension between this creedal statement that points to Jesus’ resurrection and his own completely incarnational Christology.
A more plausible interpretation takes into account the difference between epistemology and ontology. In the order in which we come to know things (ordo cognoscendi), knowledge comes first. However, at the level of ontological reality (ordo essendi), being is first. So, when a palaeontologist discovers a new species of dinosaur, the discovery takes place at a certain point in time, this morning, 2008. However, the species did not begin to exist at that time. It had already existed millions of years previously, and had long been extinct. At the level of the order of knowledge (ordo cognoscendi), the resurrection of Jesus was the point at which Jesus’ divine status was first known. Thus, in the passage Paul cites in Rom. 1:4, Jesus was “declared to be Son of God by his resurrection,” i.e., came to be known as such at that time. However, at the level of ontology (ordo essendi), if Jesus was known to be Son of God at his resurrection, then he had to have been ontologically the Son of God all along. And the Synoptics (including Luke) presume that throughout. So even though Luke in Acts 2 and elsewhere has Peter declaring the significance of Jesus’ resurrection to his hearers to confirm to them Jesus’ identity as the one in whom the promises of Scripture had been fulfilled, Luke had already made it clear that Jesus had been God’s Son all along by virtue of his conception by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). Luke’s gospel presumes throughout that Jesus was the Son of God during his entire ministry. He did not become Son of God at his resurrection. Moreover, Luke’s gospel depends on Mark, so Luke had to have been aware of Mark’s own high Christology.
The bottom line is that Paul’s writings are the earliest evidence we have for the Christology of the early church–and it is a high Christology. Luke-Acts is a later document, and Luke’s Christology must be understood as such.
[blockquote]It’d be an enormous stretch to think that Paul’s figures of speech meant he thought Jesus WAS God.[/blockquote]
Paul clearly believed that “Jesus WAS God.” Again, pay attention to the citation in Phillippians 2:10-11 of Isaiah 45:23. Paul ascribes to Jesus an Old Testament quote that in its original context plainly refers to Yahweh.
Dr. Witt.
You are absolutely right. Well done! Hmmm. You’d almost think that you were a NT scholar instead of a theologian (grin).
David Handy+
I am neither academically inclined nor erudite enough to argue about the details of the above missives. However, I do find that there is a delicious irony in this story and the Gospels. This ancient mosaic found on the grounds of a maximum security prison ! Yet the truth ripples outward ! Religious and secular authorities sought to contain, imprison, and silence Jesus by applying “maximum security” (death). Yet the truth rippled outward until it became a roar !
Isn’t there something oddly comforting in the futility of ancients and moderns battling against – and being outflanked by – ultimate Truth ?
#22.I appreciate your effort here. These are sound distinctions, and I am instructed. They also answer Mr. Toedt clearly and as close to incontrovertably as one can get when the evidence is so limited.
Once again,we are dealing with probabilities, not certainties (except as an act of faith). One must look on your essay (as one must look on the archeological find at stake here) as very high probability evidence. Larry
Wm Witt [#22], I readily grant that some in the early church held to a high christology, beginning we know not when.
I presume you will grant that Acts has Peter and other apostles preaching from a low christology during the post-Pentecostal period.
If so, it necessarily implies one of three things:
1. that during the post-Pentecostal period, the apostles secretly held to a high christology, but preached a low one — which seems a dicey speculation at best, given their seeming willingness to brave death; or
2. that, during that period, those apostles who actually knew Jesus in life not only preached a low christology, but also believed it, arriving only later if ever at a higher one (except that we have little or no reliable evidence that those particular apostles ever did so, save arguably the Fourth Gospel); or
3. that Acts, regardless when it was written, mistakenly or incompletely describes the apostles’ preaching during that period — which raises the question: what else is incorrect in Acts / Luke, and by implication, the Markan- and other accounts on which Luke drew in writing his summary.
Are there other possibilities I’ve missed?
My money is on door number 2 — and if the apostles who knew Jesus in life thought he was “merely” a specially-commissioned mortal, it’s not at all clear why we should privilege the later, higher views of those who never knew the man; indeed, to do so, I submit, is simply absurd.
[blockquote]I presume you will grant that Acts has Peter and other apostles preaching from a low christology during the post-Pentecostal period. [/blockquote]
I don’t think Dr. Witt is granting your low Christology premise in Acts at all. He seems to be saying that the resurrection is significant because it reveals Jesus’ divine nature, but that doesn’t mean that Jesus was only divine at the time of the resurrection. Jesus was the divine Son of God the entire time, the resurrection merely confirmed that fact to the apostles and was most important proof that Jesus was not a mere mortal.
I wonder if it is not more likely, #22, that Luke’s gospel does NOT depend on Mark, as you suggested, but that it was responding to oral histories (which must have been very common indeed) which shared a great deal of common information. That is was common ( if it be so at all) tells us something of its truth. The oral history was certainly a widespread transmission regardless of culture or age, and the Jews had a long history of extended memorization. Doesn’t the oral transmission to the eventual scribes who saw good cause to write them down have a higher probability? I don’t have any idea of the literacy rate in the 1st-3rd century, but the presence of scribes suggest that relatively few knew how to write, and surely some, like Jesus (like Socrates and Confucius and Mohammet), simply chose not to because it was not important to them. Larry
Larry
Larry #29,
The close word for word correspondence between Mark and Luke (not only in sayings, but also in order) with sporadic interruptions of “Q” material demands literary dependence one way or another. The best way for this to become evident is to work through the three synoptics one at a time with a synopticon, comparing as you go.
Might “Q” be an oral rather than written collection? Some scholars, e.g., N. T. Wright, seem to think so. Comparing differences between Mathew and Luke seem to indicate less tight verbal dependence in the Q material than in the Mark/Luke/Matthew commonalities.
Billqs [#28] writes: “Jesus was the divine Son of God the entire time, the resurrection merely confirmed that fact to the apostles and was most important proof that Jesus was not a mere mortal. “
I must not be making myself clear, for which I apologize. For now, let’s ignore the ultimate question, viz., whether Jesus was divine. Let’s also ignore for now whether the apostles actually held to a high christology.
What I’m pointing out is that Acts portrays the apostles, including Peter, as preaching a low christology in the early post-Pentecostal period. Many of you think the apostles always believed a high christology, but Acts clearly suggests otherwise — which raises interesting questions that William Witt and others seem afraid to confront.
[blockquote]Many of you think the apostles always believed a high christology, but Acts clearly suggests otherwise — which raises interesting questions that William Witt and others seem afraid to confront. [/blockquote]
DC,
LOL. The fact that I have not yet commented hardly means that I am afraid to confront your questions! It means that I do other things with my time besides haunt the blogs. I am definitely not quaking in my boots. I will return to this discussion when I have time.
Your argument of literary dependence between Mark and Luke is not convincing, although Heaven’s knows your scholarship is such matter is far ahead of mine. Rather, I think that you are not allowing oral histories the kind of careful and close memorization that they often necessarily have.
The memorization of geneologies is a case in point. Even in small towns now, dozens of people have careful geneologies tucked away in their heads, the elements of which are in very close agreement, but who are not dependent on each other for the elements. A and B may know the same geneologies, but they will have learned them from C who received them from D, several generations ago. And B and A may not know each other except by name. This is so common, it seems to me highly probable that the same kind of transmission held its antique way in 2nd century Christian communities. Larry
William Witt [#32] writes:
Um, right — in response to my #3, you’ve peremptorily announced that I was wrong [#6], and have made several other comments, one of them lengthy, on issues that are at best ancillary to the point I made there. But you’ve yet to find the time to address that point directly, even as restated even more plainly in #27. OK, that’s fine, I suppose; I certainly respect your prerogative to choose when and how you will participate here, as well as your need to manage your schedule.
I will respond. At length. Weekends belong to my family. My books are in my office.
Well, it’s almost a week later, and still nothing from Dr. Witt ….
#36,
You’re absolutely right, DC, and I apologize. One of the problems with teaching at a seminary is that one’s schedule is not one’s own. Last week kept me well occupied with some unexpected new items on my plate. This week I expect to have some free time.
I have finally responded to D.C., [url=http://www.willgwitt.org/blog/index.cfm/2008/10/26/A-Reply-to-the-Questioning-Christian]here[/url].
William [#38]: Very informative. Thank you!
I appreciate Irenaeus’ comment in #15. One can disagree without dismissing.