For the past month or so I have been diligently gathering and reading sources for my term paper for my Christian History and Theology class (RLST 345).
The main focus of my paper is on the “heretical,” adoptionist christology” views held by some early Christians.
As of right the primary argument I will be making is that adoptionism is the earliest christological view of Jesus.
Adoptionism:
Adoptionism, sometimes called dynamic monarchianism, is a nontrinitarian theological teaching that Jesus was adopted as God’s Son at either his baptism, his resurrection, or his ascension.
Basically, this christology holds that Jesus was not God at and prior to his birth, as was later accepted as Orthodoxy, but that he was fully human and due to his devotion to God, was chosen as his son. A good analogy that I’ve heard is as follows: Elizabeth was not born queen, nor was she a pre-existent queen. Elizabeth became queen at her coronation. Likewise, Jesus, a righteous man, was not born divine, but became divine at his baptism (or resurrection, or ascension).
Now it is certainly a fact that this view of Jesus was held by some early Christians such as, and most notably, the Ebionites. Yet the question still remains as to whether or not this was the original view of Jesus among his earliest followers.
To pursue this question I will primarily deal with the following issues:
I. Divine humans in the Greco-Roman World
II. Adoptionistic language in the New Testament and scribal corruption
III. The language Jesus uses about himself in the synoptics
IV. Theologically motivated scribal corruption in the copying of manuscripts
Based on those main themes, using the methods of historiography, I will make the case that adoptionism was the earliest christology.
With a little under two months to go i’m still actively refining the paper so certain focuses are subject to change.
So that’s a quick update. The final paper will be much more clear and organized, and more extensive.
–M
The Max Blog 