Did Jesus Exist? - The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth Bart Ehrman (books to read in your 20s txt) 📖

raised from the dead. This reconfirmed in a major way what they had thought of Jesus—that he was someone special before God. But it also forced his followers to rethink who he was. Some began to think of him as the messiah who had to suffer for sins, who had gone obediently to his death knowing that God wanted him to do so, but who was raised by God from the dead to show that he really was the one who enjoyed God’s special favor. And so God exalted him to heaven, where he is now waiting to return in order to bring in God’s kingdom as the coming messiah.

One passage that mythicists often appeal to, however, may on the surface seem to suggest that Paul, writing before the Gospels, understood Jesus as God who died and rose again (comparable to dying and rising pagan deities). This is the much-debated “hymn”—as it is called—found in Philippians 2:6–11. There is probably no other passage in the entire New Testament, and certainly none in the writings of Paul, that has had as much interpretive ink spilled over it. Scholars have written large books just on these six verses alone.11 Even though mythicists typically treat it as unambiguous evidence of their views, the reality is that there is almost nothing unambiguous in the passage. Every word and phrase has been pored over and debated by scholars using the most sophisticated tools of analysis that are available. And still there is no consensus on what the passage means. But one thing is clear: it does not mean what mythicists typically claim it means. It does not portray Jesus in the guise of a pagan dying and rising god, even if that is what, on a superficial reading, it may appear to be about.

First I need to quote the passage in full. (It is important to recognize that scholars have heated and prolonged debates about even how to translate many of the key terms.)

Have this mind in yourselves which is also in Christ Jesus,

who although he was in the form of God,

did not regard being equal with God something to be seized.

But he emptied himself,

taking on the form of a slave,

and coming in the likeness of humans.

And being found in the appearance as a human

he humbled himself

and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Therefore also God highly exalted him [literally: hyperexalted him],

and gave to him the name

that is above every name.

That at the name of Jesus,

every knee should bow

of things in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth.

And every tongue should confess

that Jesus Christ is Lord

to the glory of God the Father.

Here then is one of the most intriguing accounts of Christ in the New Testament. I cannot even begin to give a full interpretation of the passage here. But I can say something about the passage, broadly, before making a couple of key interpretive points.

There is wide agreement that the passage appears to be poetic—possibly some kind of hymn (this is what everyone used to think) or a creed (this is more plausible)—and that Paul appears to be quoting it rather than composing it. But even this is debated, as scholars dispute whether it was written by someone else before Paul drafted this letter to the Christians in Philippi or whether Paul himself was its author.12 It is debated how to divide the passage. In my translation I have divided it in half, with the first half consisting of three stanzas of three lines, each talking about the descent or humbling of Christ, and the second half consisting of three stanzas of three lines, each talking about the ascent or exaltation of Christ. That is one possibility. Many, many others have been proposed by fine scholars, many of whom have studied this passage far more than I have, even though I have studied, thought about, ruminated on, and read about this passage for well over thirty years.13

For the purposes of my discussion here I simply want to make a couple of very basic points. One interpretation of the passage—the one that will strike many first-time readers as the only obvious one—is that it portrays Christ as a preexistent divine being who came to earth, was crucified, and was then exalted back to heaven. That may be the right way to read the passage, but as I’ve said, it is hotly debated. Even if that is the best way to read the passage, however, it does not support the idea that originally Christ was seen as a dying-rising god, for several reasons.

First, even though it says that before humbling himself Christ was in the “form of God,” that does not mean that he was God. Divinity was his “form,” just as later in the passage he took on the “form” of a “slave.” That does not mean that he was permanently and always a slave; it was simply the outward form he assumed. Moreover, when it says that he “did not regard equality with God something to be seized,” it is hotly debated whether that means that he did not want to “retain” what he already had or to “grab” something that he did not have. In favor of the latter interpretation is the fact that after he humbled himself, Christ is said to have been hyperexalted, that is, exalted even higher than he was before. That must mean that before he humbled himself he was not already equal with God. Otherwise, how could he later be exalted even higher? What would be “higher” than God? That would suggest that even though he was originally in God’s form, he was not fully God at the beginning; being fully God was something that he refused to grasp.

But if Christ was in the form of God without being equal with God, what was he? Here scholars have had a field day. One of the most popular interpretations of the passage may