hjalti

Right, but what annoys me is that he seems to equate showing that Jesus wasn't believed to be "God" with showing that Jesus wasn't considered to be a god/an angel/a divine being.

I just don't see the real difference between a "dying and rising god" and a "dying and rising angel". Isn't "angel" just what self-professsed monotheists call their second tier gods?

I think he meant "Jesus as angel". Later he says;
If he accepted the "second Adam"-interpretation, surely he wouldn't say that this is "roughly the view of the Philippians hymn, because that would sound like 100% adoptionism. But if he thinks the angel-interpretation is right, then that makes sense, because it's roughly the same, because the angel get's his more exalted status at the resurrection.

hjalti

From what I can tell, it rests on Rom 1:3-4 :huh:

And let me add one thing, I feel like his inclusion of the speeches in Acts as a separate line of evidence from Rom 1:3-4 for adoptionism being the earliest Christology to be fallacious. Because I bet that he needs Rom 1:3-4 to show that those speeches are very, very early.

Diogenes the Cynic

Acts 3:15 does not literally say "author of life," it says δὲ ἀρχηγὸν τῆς ζωῆς (de archegon tes Zoes). Archegos means "first leader," and means basically "one who goes first," or "leader," in the literal sense of going first, leading point on something.

"Author of life" is better translated as "leader of life," or "leader of the living." This is part and parcel of Paul's conception of Jesus as the first fruit of the coming resurrection. The one who went first.

There is no connotation of being a "creator" in the Greek. The word can also just men "chief leader," in the sense of being top dog on a hierarchy ("prince" is a frequent translation for this sense), but it does not imply divinity.

aa5874

No, No, No!!!! Your one man translation won't do. We have MANY MANY parallel translations. You appear to be wrong by a WIDE MARGIN.

Acts 3:15 KJV
King James Version

And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

Acts 3:15 NIV
New International Version

You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

Acts 3:15 ASV
American Standard Version

and killed the Prince of life; whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

Acts 3:15 BBE
Bible in Basic English

And put to death the Lord of life; whom God gave back from the dead; of which fact we are witnesses.

Acts 3:15 CEB
Common English Bible

You killed the author of life, the very one whom God raised from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

Acts 3:15 CJB
Complete Jewish Bible

You killed the author of life! "But God has raised him from the dead! Of this we are witnesses.

Acts 3:15 RHE
Douay-Rheims

But the author of life you killed, whom God hath raised from the dead: of which we are witnesses.

Acts 3:15 ESV
English Standard Version

and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.

Acts 3:15 GW
GOD'S WORD Translation

and you killed the source of life. But God brought him back to life, and we are witnesses to that.

Acts 3:15 GNT
Good News Translation

You killed the one who leads to life, but God raised him from death - and we are witnesses to this.

Acts 3:15 HNV
Hebrew Names Version

and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, whereof we are witnesses.

Acts 3:15 CSB
Holman Christian Standard

And you killed the source of life, whom God raised from the dead; we are witnesses of this.

Acts 3:15 LEB
Lexham English Bible

And you killed the originator of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses!

New American Standard

but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.

Acts 3:15 NCV
New Century Version

And so you killed the One who gives life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses to this.

Acts 3:15 NIRV
New International Reader's Version

You killed the one who gives life. But God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

Acts 3:15 NKJV
New King James Version

and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.

Acts 3:15 NLT
New Living Translation

You killed the author of life, but God raised him to life. And we are witnesses of this fact!

Acts 3:15 NRS
New Revised Standard

and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.

Acts 3:15 RSV
Revised Standard Version

and killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.

Acts 3:15 DBY
The Darby Translation

but the originator of life ye slew, whom God raised from among [the] dead, whereof *we* are witnesses.

Acts 3:15 MSG
The Message

You no sooner killed the Author of Life than God raised him from the dead - and we're the witnesses.

Acts 3:15 WBT
The Webster Bible

And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; of which we are witnesses.

Acts 3:15 TMB
Third Millennium Bible

and killed the Prince of Life whom God hath raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.

Acts 3:15 TNIV
Today's New International Version

You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

Acts 3:15 WNT
Weymouth New Testament

The Prince of Life you put to death; but God has raised Him from the dead, and we are witnesses as to that.

Acts 3:15 WEB
World English Bible

and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, whereof we are witnesses.

Acts 3:15 WYC
Wycliffe

And ye slew the maker of life, whom God raised from death [whom God raised from dead], of whom we be witnesses.

Acts 3:15 YLT
Young's Literal Translation

and the Prince of the life ye did kill, whom God did raise out of the dead, of which we are witnesses;

Steven Carr

I was using Ehrman's own translation 'author of life'. If you believe he cannot translate the Greek accurately, and is misleading his readers by quoting bad translations.....

Still, 'the Prince of the living' just means an ordinary human being who only became exalted afterwards, doesn't it?

Managed to work out a rationalisation of out how Ehrman could write articles explaining how Luke shaped the speeches in Acts 2, 3 and 4 to be 'remarkably consistent' with Luke's view of who Jesus was, and then writes books explaining how the speeches are not consistent with Luke's view of who Jesus was?

I'm surprised you haven't come up with anything for that yet.

Steven Carr

You have to admire the consistency with which Ehrman plugs whatever line he is selling in whatever book.

Acts is a late book, and contains 'early traditions' .

Philippians is an early book, and contains things which Ehrman says are even earlier and so Ehrman simply declares them to be later than the traditions in Acts,even while claiming they are earlier than Paul himself.

Ehrman is a supposed to be an historian.

He is supposed to write history.

Instead, he rewrites history.

hjalti

Steven, here's what he says: "in the speeches of Acts, with remarkable consistency he portrays the death of Jesus not as an atoning sacrifice, but as a miscarriage of justice that God reversed by vindicating Jesus at the resurrection".

He isn't talking about stuff like pre-existence or adoptionism or something like that.

Steven Carr

Ehrman says that Luke presents Jesus as the first Christian martyr and that the speeches in Acts are 'remarkably consistent' with the image of Jesus as the first Christian martyr that Luke wanted to present.

Ehrman also gives examples of Luke changing 'earlier traditions' ie the Gospel of Mark - to make Luke's Jesus fit Luke's theological agenda.

In one work of Ehrman's, the speeches in Acts 2 , 3 and 4 are carefully crafted by Luke to match his theological agenda of what Jesus was - the first Christian martyr - and this crafting is pointed out by Ehrman to be very much the way Luke worked with earlier sources.

So how does Ehrman know that the speeches in Acts 2,3 and 4 contain 'early oral traditions' when he has just written on his blog that somebody 'made up' that 'author of life' stuff and put it in Peter's mouth?

metacristi

Having read 'Did Jesus Exist?' I can only say that Ehrman's argument against mythicists is very solid. No matter how these guys defends themselves it is clear for all rational thinkers that at the end of the day it is the arguments pro the historicity of Jesus which have the edge. Only if one wants to set up ad hoc standards in the science of history can one safely ignore the early Christian documents. Not the best of options.

Toto

Have you read the numerous replies to Ehrman that point out his errors?

"These guys"??

You seem to have swallowed some Christian apologetic arguments hook, line, and sinker. It is the proponents of a historical Jesus who have invented ad hoc standards in their treatment of early (or not so early) Christian documents.