Are there different Christologies in the NT?

[YHWH_Christ]

Many scholars like Bart Ehrman argue that there are different Christologies in the NT. For example, he argues that the Gospel of Mark is Adoptionistic and he points to the Greek grammar in Mark 1:10 where the Holy Spirit descends into (eis) Jesus, whereas Matthew reflects as different Christology by having the Holy Spirit descend upon (ep) Jesus. For Matthew, Jesus becomes God not at his baptism like he does in Mark, but at his conception, being conceived by the Holy Spirit and perhaps reflecting the femininity of the Holy Spirit in Jewish tradition, and indeed in the non-canonical Gospel of the Hebrews the Holy Spirit is the divine Mother of Christ. There are also traces of other Christologies according to scholars, like in Romans 1:4 which has Jesus become divine at his resurrection. What are traditional Christians like us to make of this?

 

[TMC]

What are traditional Christians like us to make of this?

I am not sure what you mean by “traditional” Christians, but I can give you my views.

I think it is obvious that the Gospels (and Paul) at least support different Christologies, because many, many Christians have read them and derived different Christologies. In fact, it seems to me that it took some time for even the proto-orthodox Christians of the early generations to settle on a Christology. That must be because the source materials at least support or allow different understandings.

That is not the same as saying that they necessarily contain, or mandate different Christologies, or that they mean that, for example, that Mark and John had a different understanding of the nature of Christ, but there is at least enough there for a reasonable good faith reader to come to different conclusions, because we know that reasonable good faith Christians have done so.

 

[Beryllos]

It’s like the parable of the blind men and the elephant. Who could fully comprehend the Christ? Then who could put that into words? Of course each Gospel is going to have a different take. That doesn’t make any of them less true. Each of the blind men perceived in a limited way what was revealed to them.

 

[otjm]

What are traditional Christians like us to make of this?

I too do not care for the term “traditional Catholics”.

Now to answer your question (and perhaps you will see why I made the comment): Brant Pitre wrote a wonderful book, The Case Ff Jesus. Brant is a current day Scripture scholar, received his PhD fro Notre Dame in New Testament and Ancient Judaism, and is a member of the Augustine Institute, and is the author 6 books including the above, and Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist and Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary.

In The Case For Jesus Brant pretty much disassembles Bart Ehrman and explains why Bart missed the boat, the train, and whatever else you may wish to throw in.

As both are current scholars, you may find an actual answer to what you are questioning about in the book, rather than trying to dig up something from the past.

Buy the book - it is worth it, and will provide a far better answer than you can get here.

 

[OddBird]

Many scholars like Bart Ehrman argue that there are different Christologies in the NT.

As many other points of debate in NT exegesis, this is widely based on individual interpretation. Some scholars do indeed interpret the texts as witnessing to the progressive development from a “low” Christology (adoptionism and its variants, recognized in the earliest NT writings) to a “high” Christology (the later NT writings).

My own take on it (which isn’t worth much) is that the low Christology tenants are the ones who were/are, in one way or the other, involved with the 3rd quest of the historical Jesus, a movement in NT research who tries to establish what one can say about Jesus from a historical point of view, with a particular interest in the continuity with Judaism – in short, for the 3rd quest, what we posit about Jesus should be compatible with what 1st-century Jews would have done or believed. The underlying postulate is that most 1st-century Jews wouldn’t have believed in God made man, so that’s not what the earliest texts could have meant.

Of course, not every one agrees, and there are quite a few (serious) scholars who are tenants of a “Early High Christology” – Larry Hurtado, who sadly passed away last year, comes to mind. From memory, I think Hurtado’s argument was in the “indirect proof” : did the apostles and disciples, and the early Church, behave as if they believed Jesus was God ? And his answer is “yes, they did.”

And I think it is Richard Bauckham who suggested that we do away with the ideas of “low” and “high” Christology, and that we speak of the NT Christology as a “divine identity Christology” – the point being that while NT authors express it differently, this is the common underlying idea.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

But wouldn’t this undermine scripture? If there are multiple doctrines of Christ in scripture then how we do know which one is correct? How could I make a theological argument from scripture?

 

[Vico]

But wouldn’t this undermine scripture? If there are multiple doctrines of Christ in scripture then how we do know which one is correct? How could I make a theological argument from scripture?

Christology was resolved by the authority of the early councils of the Church. You have a lot of reading to do if you want to know all of the arguments.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Ok but that doesn’t answer my question. If scripture is supposed to be infallible regarding doctrine and morality, then how can there be different Christologies in scripture?

 

[Vico]

Ok but that doesn’t answer my question. If scripture is supposed to be infallible regarding doctrine and morality, then how can there be different Christologies in scripture?

Sola scriptura is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.

The Church guided by the Holy Spirit is infallible regarding faith and morals.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

But the Catholic and Orthodox Church teach the Bible is infallible when it comes to doctrine and morality. That is not sola scriptura and you have failed to answer my question

 

[TMC]

But the Catholic and Orthodox Church teach the Bible is infallible when it comes to doctrine and morality. That is not sola scriptura and you have failed to answer my question

But the Church does not teach that every doctrine or moral teaching is expressly set out in Scripture.

 

[Vico]

But the Catholic and Orthodox Church teach the Bible is infallible when it comes to doctrine and morality. That is not sola scriptura and you have failed to answer my question

Sola Scriptura asserts sufficiency of Scripture as the supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Scripture is not sufficient. We need oral Tradition to know to know scriptures and the doctrines of the Christian faith that are not in the Bible.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Yes I understand that but that’s not the question. Scripture is the inspired Word of God, in terms of doctrine and morality the traditional teaching is that it is infallible. However if it has different Christologies then this teaching is wrong and not only would this undermine scripture but all of tradition. You are not answering my question you keep deflecting.

 

[TMC]

Yes I understand that but that’s not the question. Scripture is the inspired Word of God, in terms of doctrine and morality the traditional teaching is that it is infallible. However if it has different Christologies then this teaching is wrong and not only would this undermine scripture but all of tradition. You are not answering my question you keep deflecting.

Your question has been answered many times, you are either not understanding the answer or you are deliberately rejecting it. I can try again.

Scripture does not contain every doctrine or moral teaching. Scripture does contain teaching and inspiration that leads to deeper understanding and doctrines that may not be expressly set forth in Scripture. The fact that a doctrine is not immediately understood, or not immediately derived from Scripture does not mean that Scripture was wrong on that point. It generally means that the humans trying to understand faith and morals are imperfect beings that were slow to come to understanding. This should not be surprising because Jesus Himself said this is what would happen. (John 16).

It took time for the humans struggling to understand the ineffable Trinity to come to a Christology that (it is hoped) reflects a correct understanding of God. That is not a fault of Scripture.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Your question has been answered many times, you are either not understanding the answer or you are deliberately rejecting it. I can try again.

No you haven’t answered my question at all and you’re completely missing the point

Scripture does not contain every doctrine or moral teaching. Scripture does contain teaching and inspiration that leads to deeper understanding and doctrines that may not be expressly set forth in Scripture. The fact that a doctrine is not immediately understood, or not immediately derived from Scripture does not mean that Scripture was wrong on that point. It generally means that the humans trying to understand faith and morals are imperfect beings that were slow to come to understanding. This should not be surprising because Jesus Himself said this is what would happen. (John 16).

But that is not the question here. I am not disputing that that there are doctrines and moral teachings outside of scripture. I am not disputing tradition. However, if, as stated above, scripture contains a false doctrine like Adoptionism, then how can be it be infallible in terms of its doctrines and morality? Scripture is not really distinct from tradition, it is apart of tradition, and tradition outside of scripture affirms the infallibility of scripture in regards to what it teaches about God. But if scripture contains heresy then how is it scripture? And furthermore, wouldn’t that undermine tradition given that scripture itself is apart of tradition and tradition affirms the infallibility of scripture. How can it be apart of the tradition of the Church when the Church rejects Adoptionism yet some parts of scripture seem to teach it?

It took time for the humans struggling to understand the ineffable Trinity to come to a Christology that (it is hoped) reflects a correct understanding of God. That is not a fault of Scripture.

But scripture is inspired, it is not just another human document. Scripture cannot err in its teachings about the nature of God and Christ.

 

[Vico]

Yes I understand that but that’s not the question. Scripture is the inspired Word of God, in terms of doctrine and morality the traditional teaching is that it is infallible. However if it has different Christologies then this teaching is wrong and not only would this undermine scripture but all of tradition. You are not answering my question you keep deflecting.

Christology is not in scripture, so of course, there are not various versions there. There are scriptural statements that, taken together, have led to the Christological dogmas. Catholic Christology conforms to the early councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon.

 

[JSRG]

Many scholars like Bart Ehrman argue that there are different Christologies in the NT. For example, he argues that the Gospel of Mark is Adoptionistic and he points to the Greek grammar in Mark 1:10 where the Holy Spirit descends into (eis) Jesus, whereas Matthew reflects as different Christology by having the Holy Spirit descend upon (ep) Jesus.

The immediate problem we see is that these words are used by different authors with different styles. If this was a distinction being drawn between the usage of “eis” and “ep” by the same writer this might make some sense (though still seeming like a stretch), but they’re different writers.

For Matthew, Jesus becomes God not at his baptism like he does in Mark, but at his conception, being conceived by the Holy Spirit and perhaps reflecting the femininity of the Holy Spirit in Jewish tradition,

This seems to be getting a lot more than is warranted out of the usage of one preposition over another.

and indeed in the non-canonical Gospel of the Hebrews the Holy Spirit is the divine Mother of Christ.

Well the non-canonical Gospel of the Hebrews is… well, non-canonical. More importantly, we have only limited quotes from it, making analysis of its Christology difficult without further context.

There are also traces of other Christologies according to scholars, like in Romans 1:4 which has Jesus become divine at his resurrection.

I read Romans 1:4 as saying that Jesus was “declared” as the Son of God by Resurrection in that the Resurrection was evidence of him being the Son of God, not that it made him the Son of God. Especially given that Jesus is repeatedly referred to as the “Son of God” in the Gospels prior to that point.

 

[TMC]

But scripture is inspired, it is not just another human document. Scripture cannot err in its teachings about the nature of God and Christ.

Sorry, but I can only conclude at this point that you are deliberately twisting what I and others are saying for some reason of your own. You are reading things into my responses that are not only not there, but which expressly contradict what I am saying. Disappointing. If you are here to argue, argue. This game playing is just wasting my time.

 

[BartholomewB]

Scripture is the inspired Word of God, in terms of doctrine and morality the traditional teaching is that it is infallible. However if it has different Christologies then this teaching is wrong and not only would this undermine scripture but all of tradition.

I think you are missing the point. As @Vico said in his post #16,

Christology is not in scripture, so of course, there are not various versions there.

Christology is based on Scripture, but Christology is not in Scripture. If you had mentioned the term “Christology” to any one of the Evangelists, would he have understood what you were saying? I don’t think so. In their day, the Christian Church had not yet come into contact with Greek philosophy. In case you’re not familiar with it, I warmly recommend Edwin Hatch’s last book, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church.

https://archive.org/details/influenceofgreek00hatc/page/n27/mode/2up

 

[Beryllos]

@YHWH_Christ, you are laboring under a particularly narrow view of the infallibility or inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. You compare interpretations of a word here or there, and call it error when they don’t agree. We could fill a book with such apparent contradictions.

This might be a good time to review the Catechism starting with paragraphs 101-111 and perhaps a bit further.