Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] How did early Christians make unorthodox texts seem orthodox? By Bart D. Ehrman, read by John Paul Middlesworth I've been arguing that Luke's gospel originally may not have had the story of Jesus'virgin birth, but portrayed Jesus as being adopted by God to be his son at the baptism. In the previous post, I explained one strategy that could be used to meme an otherwise important and beloved text when it held a view that could be seen as problematic. You could edit it, but there are other ways. As I explain here, taken from a paper I delivered orally to a group of scholars, a second strategy that could be used, and was used by protoorthodox Christians to constrain the reading of the text was by putting it in a canon of writings, a collection of texts with varying perspectives which, once placed together, affected how each one would be read. I'll not spend much time discussing this strategy, as it is familiar enough to all of us here. It was familiar enough to early Christians as well as early as Irenaeus, who points out in a famous passage in book three of his adversis, Heresus, that various groups of heretics go astray in their thinking because they choose to follow the teachings of just one gospel or another, rather than recognizing that there are four gospels whose teachings need to be read in light of one another. And so, he says, the Ebionites err by following only Matthew those who separate Jesus from the Christ err by following only mark the Marcianites err in accepting only Luke, and the Valentinians err in following only John. For Irenaeus and those like him who advocated a four gospel canon, all four of these books need to be read in conjunction with each of the others. And this is in fact an effective hermeneutical strategy, so that one who reads Mark and thinks that the baptism is when Jesus becomes the Son of God is to read Luke in its final canonized form to see that in fact he was the son of God at his birth. And those who think that Jesus became the son of God at his birth need to read John to see that Christ was with God in the beginning. And so emerges the orthodox doctrine that Christ was the pre existent word of God who became flesh by being born of the Virgin Mary, a doctrine found in precisely none of the gospels singly. But that emerges when four gospels are put between the same hardcovers, so to say, and made to be read in light of one another. But there is yet a third strategy for constricting the reading of a text like Luke's or Mark's or any other one that could be readily taken to imply that Jesus was merely adopted by God to be his son rather than the Son of God by nature, and that is, to propagate alternative narratives that counter adoptionistic views and support more orthodox ones.
[00:02:47] I think that some of the puzzles that have intrigued scholars about the apocryphal gospel texts can be solved by seeing them in this light. The non canonical narratives of Jesus'birth, life, death, and resurrection no doubt had numerous functions. They were entertaining tales that may well have been meant to attract a christian audience, much the way pagan novels were meant to entertain a pagan audience. Somewhat like the left behind series that has made such an enormous impact in the US, at least serves as a substitute for evangelical audiences who are not otherwise likely to pick up a science fiction novel.
[00:03:21] But were these apocryphal narratives meant to convey theological messages as well?
[00:03:26] Scholars have long debated the issue and have by and large found it nearly impossible to locate precise theological agendas in such apocryphal tales as the protovangelium Jacobi or the infancy gospel of Thomas. But possibly the problem has been that scholars have inadvertently missed the forest for the trees. It's possible that some of these apocryphal tales convey broader theological themes that may have been subtly useful for the proto orthodox cause, implanted in narratives that, for the most part were meant to be creative and entertaining. The two apocryphal gospels I've mentioned, for example, presume a familiarity with Luke's gospel and yet contain narrative elements that work to counteract any kind of adoptionistic understanding of it. Take the proto vangelium of James. This text is more about Mary than it is about Jesus, but it is clearly familiar with and dependent on Luke's gospel and functions, in fact, as a kind of mid rashic exposition of Luke's infancy narrative. The midrash is not merely an expansion of the events narrated in Luke, however. The exposition guides the reading of Luke by providing both narrative details and theological ideas that lead one away from an adoptionistic interpretation of the events of Jesus'appearance into the world. The miracle of Luke's gospel involves the conception of Jesus his mother conceives while still a virgin. It is the creative power of God that comes upon her, allowing her to bear a child. But there is nothing in the text to indicate that Jesus pre existed this conception. His birth is when he comes into existence.
[00:05:03] The proto Evangelium develops both the storyline and the theological emphasis of Luke's account. The storyline itself is highly entertaining, especially the unforgettable moment when Joseph leaves Mary in a cave outside of Bethlehem and goes off to find a midwife to assist with the birth and then, unexpectedly, watches time literally stand still as the Son of God comes into the world. Joseph sees the birds of the air frozen in mid flight, men eating with their hands stuck partway to their mouths. Sheep stop while being herded, a shepherd with his hand arrested in mid air, and then everything moves again and returns to normal. When he and the midwife return to the cave, a bright cloud overshadows it. When the cloud departs, the cave is filled with a bright light that blinds their eyes. As it dims, an infant appears who walks over to Mary to nurse at her breast. This is no ordinary birth and no ordinary newborn. And one of the obvious points is that it was not just the conception of Jesus that was miraculous. His birth itself was a miracle. This is shown most notably by the best known incident of the account, when a second midwife, Salome, does not believe that a virgin could have brought forth a child into the world and decides to give Mary a postpartum inspection. That, as it turns out, was a very bad idea. As soon as Salome inserts her finger, her hand starts to burn and she cries out in agony. Then, notably, the text indicates that she kneeled before the master and prayed to him, evidently to Jesus. Quote o God of my fathers, remember that I am a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Do not make me an example to the sons of Israel, for you know, o master, that I have performed my services in your name. Unquote. An angel of the Lord then appears and tells her to bring her burning hand to the child and to lift him up. She does so and is healed. This account portrays not only a virginal conception, but also a virginal birth. Even more, the infant Jesus is not simply a newborn. He is none other than God almighty, and already as an infant he is able to perform a miracle of healing. It is possible that a tale like this may have been useful in later times to patropassianists, who understood Christ to be God the father himself, become flesh. But it is important to remember that patropassianism emerged directly out of the proto orthodox movement for reasons that historically make considerable sense. For patropassianists, like their orthodox opponents, wanted to insist that there was only one God and that Christ was God, while also fully human.
[00:07:50] They and their orthodox opponents could affirm much of what is presented in this text of the proto Vangelium and its clear denial of adoptionistic claims. Jesus came into the world as God, not as a human who was simply chosen by God. These alternative narratives, in other words, would not have to wait for the end of the second century to be invented. They may well be rooted in oral transmissions generated early in the history of the transmission and circulation of Luke's gospel.
