In this post, I'll comment about Jesus' self understanding as the "Son of God". Keep in mind that this point is purely historical, not theological or religious. I mean, I won't defend or refute the view that Jesus was the ACTUAL son of God, but the view that Jesus saw himself as such (If Jesus was deluded in such a self-perception, or if he was actually the Son of God, is a matter for discussing in another topic).
As I've explained in a previous post, when I began to study the evidence for the Historical Jesus, I took for granted most of the claims of some members of the Jesus Seminar, including the claim that that group represents mainstream scholarship about Jesus research. Suppossedly, one of the conclusions of "mainstream scholarship" is that the Historical Jesus never said or implied that he was the "son of God".
Since then, I've studied in depth the literature of the Jesus Seminar and many other contemporary Jesus scholars, and currently I'm strongly skeptical of the above Jesus Seminar's claim. Currently, I think there is good evidence for the claim that Jesus said or implied that he was the unique son of God and I think most New Testament scholars recognize this. (The members of the Jesus Seminar are just a extremely tiny minority among Jesus scholars, and they like to portrait themselves as the voice of modern mainstream scholarship. The media, the general public and people hostile to traditional Christianity tends to buy this misleading characterization, but when you study in depth the literature with a critical eye and without prejudices about the historical Jesus, you discover a scenario very different than the one portraited by the Jesus Seminar).
In fact, I think the evidence is so good that even some members of the Jesus seminar recognize the designation of the "son of God" as historical. For example, James Crossley (a member of the Jesus Seminar, an expert in the Gospel of Mark and an scholar far more rigurous, serious and honest than Borg or Crossan) comments "Famous terms for Jesus such as "son of Man" or "Son of God" really were being used by or of Jesus when he was alive" (How did Christianity begin? p.1)
Some radical skeptics like to say that the designation "Son of God" was an invention of Christians. But as Crossley concedes, the designation was being used (by or of) Jesus when he was still alive (which suggests not only that such designation was said or implied by Jesus himself, but moreover tolerated by him).
There are good evidence for the view that Jesus' self understanding included the view that he was the (only) son of God. Consider:
1)Matthew 11.27: "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him"
As I've explained in a previous post, the principle of dissimilarity suggests this saying is historical. Also, this saying destroys the religious pluralist reconstruction of the historical Jesus of people like Marcus Borg (who, as consequence of his pluralism, has a very strong and obvious watered down version of Jesus, portraiting him like a mere teacher, story teller of great onliners whose main purpose was to change people perceptions... a view that, if correct, is not fundamentally different than any other leading spiritual teacher in the history).
Radical skeptics have tried to deny these exclusivistic sayings arguing sophistically that the expression "sons of God" was used to designate kings, angels, emperors, great philosophers, etc. But these expressions are never used in those contexts implying some kind of exclusivistic or exclusive position or authority (contrary to the context of the above saying in which Jesus began with an exclusion: "No one knows the Father except the Son", implying not only that the son is ONE, but that only such unique son has the authority to reveal God to other people).
This exclusivism regarding the condition of being "The Son of God" becomes more obvious in the following saying:
2)Mark 13:32: "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father"
According to the principle of embarrassment, this saying is likely to be historical, because Jesus is admitting that he's ignorant of the time of his Second Coming. And ignorance is not what the early Church would attribute to a man that they considered to be God (because God is omniscient).
In Greek exists a figure of speech known as anabasis, which consists in an step by step increasing in stress or emphasis inside a passage. In the above passage, Jesus seems to be making a gradation in levels:
-No one ("normal human beings") knows
-Not even the angels in Heaven (angels, being a little bit superior than human beings)
-Nor the Son (the son, not a son nor some sons, implying that just one has that status and, moreover, that he is in a superior level than angels)
-Only the Father (abba) = God, which has a superior status than everybody else.
This clearly places Jesus as "Son of God" in a category above humans and angels (hence, in a superior position regarding any other spiritual teacher, social reformer, philosopher, religious man, king, etc.).
He is claiming to be the Son of God in a unique or exclusivistic sense.
Implications of this view:
1)Jesus' exclusivistic self-perception regarding his condition as "the son of God" (which excludes any other spiritual teacher as a guide or source of reliable information about God) suggests that Jesus saw himself as someone with a divine status: he's an unique divine authority (= authority regarding God matters) among human beings.
If his status were merely and purely human (as people like Borg wants us to believe), then there is not reason to think that only Jesus (and not other spiritual teachers) has that special condition, and religious pluralism would be justified.
This is the reason why pluralists like Borg and Crossan try hard to avoid any exclusivistic view of Jesus.
2)Such divine status makes sense of Jesus' resurrection, provided the latter was an historical event. The resurrection would be the ultimate proof that Jesus' self perception and teaching weren't blasphemous after all, but true claims.
But if Jesus was merely human (without any special divine status), a mere teller of stories intended to change people's perceptions like done by many other spiritual teachers, how the HELL are we going to make sense of his physical resurrection (which, if ocurred, is an unique event in history)?
People like Borg and Crossan realize the exclusivistic implications of the resurrection, and this is why they reject it (misleadingly using the language of the resurrection to refer to the subjective experiences of the disciples, as I've proved here).
3)The above shows that Jesus implied to have a divine status (and status which allowed him to speak authoritatively, with an unique and exclusive authority, about the Kingdom of God... after all, only "the son" knows the Father = God). Philosophically and theologically, it tells us a lot about the ontological nature of Jesus (specially, provided the resurrection actually happened).
In other posts, I'll consider the evidence for Jesus' claims implying his identification with God (i.e. he spoke and acted as though he were God Himself, namely, in matters reserved exclusively to God) and how religious pluralists try to handle it.
As I've explained in a previous post, when I began to study the evidence for the Historical Jesus, I took for granted most of the claims of some members of the Jesus Seminar, including the claim that that group represents mainstream scholarship about Jesus research. Suppossedly, one of the conclusions of "mainstream scholarship" is that the Historical Jesus never said or implied that he was the "son of God".
Since then, I've studied in depth the literature of the Jesus Seminar and many other contemporary Jesus scholars, and currently I'm strongly skeptical of the above Jesus Seminar's claim. Currently, I think there is good evidence for the claim that Jesus said or implied that he was the unique son of God and I think most New Testament scholars recognize this. (The members of the Jesus Seminar are just a extremely tiny minority among Jesus scholars, and they like to portrait themselves as the voice of modern mainstream scholarship. The media, the general public and people hostile to traditional Christianity tends to buy this misleading characterization, but when you study in depth the literature with a critical eye and without prejudices about the historical Jesus, you discover a scenario very different than the one portraited by the Jesus Seminar).
In fact, I think the evidence is so good that even some members of the Jesus seminar recognize the designation of the "son of God" as historical. For example, James Crossley (a member of the Jesus Seminar, an expert in the Gospel of Mark and an scholar far more rigurous, serious and honest than Borg or Crossan) comments "Famous terms for Jesus such as "son of Man" or "Son of God" really were being used by or of Jesus when he was alive" (How did Christianity begin? p.1)
Some radical skeptics like to say that the designation "Son of God" was an invention of Christians. But as Crossley concedes, the designation was being used (by or of) Jesus when he was still alive (which suggests not only that such designation was said or implied by Jesus himself, but moreover tolerated by him).
There are good evidence for the view that Jesus' self understanding included the view that he was the (only) son of God. Consider:
1)Matthew 11.27: "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him"
As I've explained in a previous post, the principle of dissimilarity suggests this saying is historical. Also, this saying destroys the religious pluralist reconstruction of the historical Jesus of people like Marcus Borg (who, as consequence of his pluralism, has a very strong and obvious watered down version of Jesus, portraiting him like a mere teacher, story teller of great onliners whose main purpose was to change people perceptions... a view that, if correct, is not fundamentally different than any other leading spiritual teacher in the history).
Radical skeptics have tried to deny these exclusivistic sayings arguing sophistically that the expression "sons of God" was used to designate kings, angels, emperors, great philosophers, etc. But these expressions are never used in those contexts implying some kind of exclusivistic or exclusive position or authority (contrary to the context of the above saying in which Jesus began with an exclusion: "No one knows the Father except the Son", implying not only that the son is ONE, but that only such unique son has the authority to reveal God to other people).
This exclusivism regarding the condition of being "The Son of God" becomes more obvious in the following saying:
2)Mark 13:32: "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father"
According to the principle of embarrassment, this saying is likely to be historical, because Jesus is admitting that he's ignorant of the time of his Second Coming. And ignorance is not what the early Church would attribute to a man that they considered to be God (because God is omniscient).
In Greek exists a figure of speech known as anabasis, which consists in an step by step increasing in stress or emphasis inside a passage. In the above passage, Jesus seems to be making a gradation in levels:
-No one ("normal human beings") knows
-Not even the angels in Heaven (angels, being a little bit superior than human beings)
-Nor the Son (the son, not a son nor some sons, implying that just one has that status and, moreover, that he is in a superior level than angels)
-Only the Father (abba) = God, which has a superior status than everybody else.
This clearly places Jesus as "Son of God" in a category above humans and angels (hence, in a superior position regarding any other spiritual teacher, social reformer, philosopher, religious man, king, etc.).
He is claiming to be the Son of God in a unique or exclusivistic sense.
Implications of this view:
1)Jesus' exclusivistic self-perception regarding his condition as "the son of God" (which excludes any other spiritual teacher as a guide or source of reliable information about God) suggests that Jesus saw himself as someone with a divine status: he's an unique divine authority (= authority regarding God matters) among human beings.
If his status were merely and purely human (as people like Borg wants us to believe), then there is not reason to think that only Jesus (and not other spiritual teachers) has that special condition, and religious pluralism would be justified.
This is the reason why pluralists like Borg and Crossan try hard to avoid any exclusivistic view of Jesus.
2)Such divine status makes sense of Jesus' resurrection, provided the latter was an historical event. The resurrection would be the ultimate proof that Jesus' self perception and teaching weren't blasphemous after all, but true claims.
But if Jesus was merely human (without any special divine status), a mere teller of stories intended to change people's perceptions like done by many other spiritual teachers, how the HELL are we going to make sense of his physical resurrection (which, if ocurred, is an unique event in history)?
People like Borg and Crossan realize the exclusivistic implications of the resurrection, and this is why they reject it (misleadingly using the language of the resurrection to refer to the subjective experiences of the disciples, as I've proved here).
3)The above shows that Jesus implied to have a divine status (and status which allowed him to speak authoritatively, with an unique and exclusive authority, about the Kingdom of God... after all, only "the son" knows the Father = God). Philosophically and theologically, it tells us a lot about the ontological nature of Jesus (specially, provided the resurrection actually happened).
In other posts, I'll consider the evidence for Jesus' claims implying his identification with God (i.e. he spoke and acted as though he were God Himself, namely, in matters reserved exclusively to God) and how religious pluralists try to handle it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment