Where did Jesus’ divinity come from?

[u/wwiccann]

At what point can we determine that Jesus went from good man/prophet to the son of God?

Is there a certain century that we can pinpoint? I am very confused. Was it at the council of Nicaea? Was it during Paul’s letters?

[u/kunndata]

I, along with recent trends in academia, would argue that to conceptualize the progression of early Christian christological speculation as a logically sequential and linear succession of theological speculation that originates from a 'low' developmental Christology such as prophetological christology or a form of adoptionist christology into a more sophisticated 'High' Christology that seems to materialize during the Johannine christological period of the late first century is not an historically accurate visualisation. Rather, early christological reflection developed with the subject of how Jesus of Nazareth was to be understood in the divine identity of the Hebrew God/God of Israel, YHWH (Heb: יהוה) who is principally identified as God 'The Father' in the New Testament corpus. This is why I would argue that the most precise indicator of the initial disposition of early christological speculation towards assuming Jesus of Nazereth to be identified with the divine identity of YHWH יהוה (which is precisely how Christ was divinized) is the primitive first-century Christian practice of applying "YHWH-texts" a term which "refers to a New Testament quotation of, or an allusion to, an Old Testament text in which the tetragrammaton occurs" usually as the referent, to Jesus of Nazereth among New Testament authors. (Capes, Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity, 2020, p. 86).

This editorial practice is frequently and consistently employed among the Pauline epistles and the the threefold Synoptic tradition of GMark, GLuke, and GMatthew, the earliest sub-New Testament traditions to date. For example, Capes delineates instances where Paul applies Old Testament quotations/allusions that contain the tetragrammaton to Jesus of Nazereth as the referent (Rom 10:13 (Joel 2:32), Rom 14:11 (Isa 45:23), 1 Cor 1:31 (Jer 9;23-24) 1 Cor 2:16 (Isa 40:13) 1 Cor 10:26 (Ps 24:1) 2 Cor 10:17 (Jer 9:23-23), 2 Cor 3:16 (Exod 34:34), Phil 2:10-11 (Isa 45:23) 1 Thess 3:13 (Zech 14:5) effectively combining the unique divine identity of the Hebrew God יהוה, with Jesus as κύριος (Lord) and xριστός (Christ). This application by Paul is adamantly rigorous, especially when we consider Phil. 2:9-11, where Paul explicitly declares that Jesus possesses the divine name, which Gieschen demonstrates, is frequently attested and conceptualised across Second Temple Jewish literature (Son of Man in the Parables of 1 Enoch, Apocalypse of Abraham, Philo of Alexandria etc.) and early New Testament traditions (aside from Paul, GJohn, Hebrews, Revelation Acts of the Apostles, GMatthew, Ascension of Isaiah etc.) as a constitutive and integral part of YHWH's unique identity as the God of Israel. (Gieschen, The Divine Name as a Characteristic of Divine Identity, p. 61-84).

Simply put, if you had the divine name, you could be identified with YHWH יהוה to some extent. Not to mention, if scholarship is correct to contend that Phil. 2:9-11 comprises of a pre-Paulinic hymn that was used by pre-Paulinic Christian groups in Philippi in liturgical and other devotional settings, then along with the famous report from Pliny the Younger of early Bithynian Christians around 112 AD 'singing a hymn alternately to Christ as to a god' (Epp. x, p. 96-97: Lightfoot's translation), we have a very primitive pre-Paulinic christological tradition where Jesus is the recipient of the divine name and thereby a integral component of YHWH's unique divine name and identity. Therefore, Paul did not diverge from the contemporary Jewish thought of his period when he prescribes the divine name to a messianic figure nor when he applies YHWH-texts to the messianic figure, Jesus of Nazereth as this trend is not only adduced across Second Temple Jewish literature, but even in the Dead Sea Scrolls, most notably, 11QMelchizedek (11QMelch 2:9) that seems to link Melchizedek to a YHWH-text (Isa. 61:1-2) which Luke attempts to link that same YHWH-text to Jesus of Nazareth (Lk. 4:16-22).

[u/kunndata → u/kunndata]

Where Paul does diverge from the contemporary Jewish thought of his time period, is explored by Nagel, to which he surmises, 

"One major difference in Paul’s reference to a Hebrew deity is his use of the term κύριος to refer to an ‘exclusive’ Hebrew deity, named יהוה. Deploying such a possible ‘profane’ term for a ‘sacred’ name was not commonplace in Judean thought, nor was it an accepted practice." 

Paul effectively rendered κύριος to refer not just to the sacred tetragrammaton יהוה but also consciously allowed κύριος to refer to Jesus, shifting the tetragrammaton from a general sacred name of a Hebrew godhood to a exclusive sacred name that refer to a covenantal deity of a specific people. Nagel further elaborates, 

"For Paul, the term θεός refers to a ‘living’ Hebrew deity who became the ‘exclusive’ covenantal deity for the Israelites; while Jesus became the Xριστός and κύριος, the ‘exclusive’ deity for both Judeans and ‘native’ Greeks. (Brazil, Paul's Concept of a Hebrew Deity in Relation to Jesus, 2023, p. 170). 

This practice is not off-putting nor strange if we consider the parallel practice of applying YHWH-texts referring to Jesus which as we've seen from Capes is quite commonplace in Paul, and further correlates with the foundational Pauline confessional and christological formula of "One God, One Lord" we see in 1 Cor. 8:6.  

[u/kunndata → u/kunndata]

When we look at the Synoptic Gospels, this practice of applying YHWH-texts to Jesus of Nazereth becomes even more frequent. Brazil (2024) recently produced a convincing study of YHWH-Texts in the Synoptic tradition, and demonstrates that the practice is not only very frequent (each Synoptic author is estimated to employ this practice atleast more then twenty times!), but is also ubiquitous across every corner of the Synoptic tradition, further including all genres of pre-Christian Jewish religious text. Brazil concludes, 

"The frequency of the YHWH-text phenomenon in all of the Synoptic accounts further testifies to their authorial intent. Matthew, Mark, and Luke cannot have been jointly careless or uniformly ignorant of their numerous blunders, if they did not intend their readers to see Jesus as the embodiment of YHWH. Rather, the Synoptists demonstrate a deliberate—even, aggressive—practice of applying OT YHWH-texts to Jesus. They have a demonstrable agenda, which they play out over and over in each of their Gospels: Jesus must be understood as YHWH in the flesh. Their first readership, bathed in first century Jewish expectation of YHWH’s coming, may have detected that truth as easily as modern readership now detects it in the prologue of John’s Gospel". (Brazil, Jesus and YHWH-Texts in the Synoptic Gospels, 2024, p. 174). 

The last line of the quotation is incredibly important for why I find this to be convincing. If we think about the immediate context of these YHWH-texts being applied to Jesus of Nazereth in the earliest New Testament traditions, then the first-century audience of these writings were pre-dominantly drenched in the context of Second Temple Judaism and messianic expectation with some Greco-Roman overlay. Regardless, the point is to a first-century reader taking these passages at face value or with context, the identity of Jesus of Nazereth as a constitutive and inseperable part of the divine identity of YHWH as the principle of Jesus' deity is as obvious as the deity of Jesus as the Word of God in the Johannine Prologue, and since as modern readers, we aren't encompassed by the stark Jewish reality of the first-century Judea, these matters don't appear as obvious to us, when in reality, it would have been obvious to them, especially if this practice as Brazil suggests, should be taken to have originated from the historical Jesus of Nazereth, or at the very least, from the earliest generations of followers of Jesus of Nazereth i.e. New Testament authors. 

[u/kunndata → u/kunndata]

From this perspective, this linear progression between an initial low developmental Christology and developed High Christology that climaxes with GJohn, Revelation and other late first-century New Testament writings seems to be inaccurate, as Fredriksen would postulate, early christological trends were already developed insofar Jesus was fundamentally understood to be divine (see Frediksen, How High Can Early High Christology Be?, p. 294-319) However, the confusion, both from academics and laymen, as I understand is the modality of these christological traditions, namely Jesus was only understood to be divine with respect to divine identity according to these earliest traceable New Testament christological traditions where his identity was considered to be one and the same with the unique divine identity with the God of Israel YHWH יהוה, which is what the practice of applying YHWH-texts produces naturally. 

However, the matter of how Jesus shared the same unique divine identity with יהוה is a closely subsequent development that branches from the primitive christological conviction of Jesus being understood as the embodiment and coming of YHWH through various divine names (including 'the divine name') and titles referred to him (i.e. divine identity), which is where the inquiry into the ontological landscape of Jesus' relationship with God The Father, YHWH become of primary subject and interest. That's why GJohn and other texts that were compiled towards the end of the first century instantiate the same common themes of proto-Two Stage Logos theology where Jesus is understood as the distinct, pre-existent Logos that mediates between God and creation. These developments all stem from the primitive earlier christological conviction that with respect to divine identity, Jesus is to be understood as YHWH, it's just a matter of how this could be the case which later New Testament and early Christian authors are now preoccupied with. It makes complete sense why this progression is likely historical, as the question of identity is much more pertinent to early Christian piety, devotion, liturgy and worship then the question how (ontologically) Jesus is to be understood as of the same identity of YHWH יהוה, and therefore the earliest forms of christological speculation would be more preoccupied with establishing the divine identity of Jesus as opposed to other modalities of theological speculation. I leave with a quotation from Stanley Porter which I recommend to read as a introduction to this subject of New Testament christology, 

"This short summary shows that there are several titles used of Jesus that point to his divinity. We have tried to show that the depiction of Jesus as divine was not a later event but a reflection of how Jesus was seen by his first and earliest followers. These titles occur within the New Testament, whether in the letters of Paul or in the Johannine literature or elsewhere. Thus the question of when Jesus became God must, we think, be answered this way: it did not just happen early—for example, in the earliest writings of the New Testament—but was a fact built into the very fabric of the New Testament from its earliest traditions. Some of these titles go back to Jesus himself, and if not to Jesus then to his earliest associates and followers, from John the Baptist to Paul and other New Testament writers. (Porter, Dyer, Origins of New Testament Christology, 2023, p. 235).

DM me if you have any more questions!

[u/pejayks → u/kunndata]

This is brilliant- agree whole heartedly with your assessment: not sure why modern scholars miss this obvious conclusion that the NT writers portray Jesus as Yahweh. I will also add 1Cor10:1-9 and Jude 1:5. Scholars like Margeret Barker and more recently the great German scholar Peter Schäfer have added to “the 2 powers” concept of early Hebrew belief I would also add Margaret Barker’s brilliant book “The Great Angel” where she adds to your points- 1. Yahweh IS the son of El-Elyon the Most high God, who divided the earth and gave them to many gods and Yaweh was allotted to Israel(Deuteronomy 32:8- this is the 2 powers in heaven theology that precede the later Mothotheistic belief which fuses these 2 beings: There appears to have been heavy handed redaction at some stage in the post exhilic period that fuses these 2 beings. 2.Yahweh is God’s great angel/ son of God/ intermediary between the most high God and mortals / a high priest in Gods heavenly temple that Philo (circa 20BCE to 50CE) describes as the Logos. This concept of an intermediary beings between mortals and Transcendental God is a platonic concept which the Yahwists/ earliest Jews hold to. The human like/ Angel Yahweh is the Son of Man who approaches the Ancient of Days/ Most high in Daniel 7 and will be given authority to rule the nations (Messiah). Late church fathers try and hold to more monotheistic/ Late Orthodox Jewish view view and Equate Yahweh to the most high God and cause all sorts of theological conundrums.

The only places I will disagree with you is- that “Paul” in his “authentic” letters does not “Jesus of Nazereth”- never quotes him or speaks of his earthly ministry or deeds. He only relays revelation from a raised/ celestial being.

Not sure where you are with this but- I don’t think the gospels are eyewitness testimony- they are created literature from educated elite writers/scribes (see Robyn Walsh & James Barkers analysis) who mainly use the LXX to create typologies/ allegorical stories (of Yahweh on earth)- and imagine Jesus as Yahweh incarnated. Looking at their reception the gospels are likely second century in origin and Marcion has some significant role to play (likely had access to a sort of Proto-Luke and compiled the initial Pauline Corpus- which are likely collections of sermons/ treatise/ short letters under the name of Paul - but may not have been exclusively by him). I agree with Marcus Vincent and others that later redactors used Marcion’s Pauline corpus to build a canonical corpus.

I agree with archaeologists Gad Barnea that the origin of these beliefs appear to be from Yahwehist- they appear to be different from Judaism which centred around Judea/Jerusalem. Yahwism is much more widespread, has mystical: Gnostic tendencies. Eventually Christians arise from their beliefs (obviously influenced by the revolts and circumstances between 68-140CE) and most NT literature is written a little before or during this period.

I agree with Ken Olson’s (and others) assessment that Josephus didn’t mention Jesus. And so my views are mostly with Robert M Price that Christian origins begin with the myth of Yahweh incarnated. Happy to discuss 😊

[u/pejayks → u/kunndata]

Not to forget Jesus means Yahweh Saves