|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Welcome to a very special conversation that takes us deep into the heart of one of the most significant and enduring questions in religious history: Who was Jesus, and what did he truly teach? In this imaginary dialogue, we bring together some of the most brilliant minds—Bart Ehrman, Reza Aslan, Elaine Pagels, John Dominic Crossan, and Karen Armstrong—to explore the journey of early Christian thought, from the historical Jesus to the development of doctrines that shaped the global religion we know today.
We’ll dive into the critical distinction between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of theology, uncover the complexities surrounding his divinity, and explore the evolution of salvation as a central Christian belief. Together, these scholars will shed light on how early Christians grappled with diverse views, how figures like Paul influenced the course of Christian theology, and whether salvation by belief in Jesus was truly part of his original message—or a man-made doctrine that emerged later.
This is an imaginary conversation, but the insights you’ll hear today are rooted in years of research, scholarship, and deep thinking. Let’s embark on this journey of discovery and reflection. I promise you, it will be an enlightening and thought-provoking experience.
The Historical Jesus vs. Theological Jesus
Nick Sasaki: Welcome, everyone. Today, we’re diving into a fascinating topic that touches the core of Christian theology—the distinction between the historical Jesus and the theological Jesus. Each of you brings a unique perspective to the table. Let’s begin by defining who the historical Jesus was and how he contrasts with the Jesus of Christian theology. Bart, as a historian and scholar of the New Testament, how would you characterize the historical Jesus?
Bart Ehrman: Thanks, Nick. The historical Jesus, from a scholarly perspective, was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher who lived in the first century. His teachings revolved around the imminent arrival of God's Kingdom. He spoke of justice for the poor, the reversal of social hierarchies, and the coming of a divine intervention that would transform the world. Historically, he was a prophet—a man deeply rooted in the Jewish tradition who never claimed to be God. The theological figure of Jesus, as later constructed by the church, took on divine qualities that don’t align with the evidence we have about his life and message. His identity evolved as Christianity spread and as theologians shaped the narrative.
Nick Sasaki: That’s an intriguing distinction. Reza, in Zealot, you also emphasize Jesus as a revolutionary figure. How do you see the theological Jesus differing from the historical one?
Reza Aslan: I agree with Bart that the historical Jesus was a man of flesh and blood, very much concerned with the socio-political issues of his time. Jesus, in my view, was a zealous Jewish nationalist who sought to free his people from Roman occupation. His message was not about individual salvation or divinity, but about the collective liberation of the Jewish people. The theological Jesus, however, was shaped by Paul and others who weren’t interested in Jesus’ Jewishness but rather in spreading his message to the Gentiles. That’s where the idea of Jesus as God, and the focus on personal salvation through belief in him, comes from. This shift had profound implications for Christianity.
Nick Sasaki: Elaine, your research into early Christianities reveals a diverse array of beliefs about Jesus. How does this diversity play into the distinction between the historical and theological Jesus?
Elaine Pagels: It’s important to remember that early Christianity wasn’t monolithic. There were many different interpretations of who Jesus was. Some groups, like the Gnostics, saw Jesus as a divine messenger who imparted secret wisdom. Others, like the followers of Paul, emphasized his death and resurrection as the means of salvation. But early on, there was no uniform belief that Jesus was God. The doctrine of Jesus' divinity and the emphasis on salvation through belief developed later as the church gained institutional power and needed to create a cohesive theological narrative. Theological Jesus was a creation of these processes—designed to unite different factions under a single banner.
Nick Sasaki: That’s a compelling point. John Dominic, you’ve worked extensively with the Jesus Seminar to reconstruct the historical Jesus. How does your understanding of Jesus fit into this conversation?
John Dominic Crossan: The historical Jesus, in my research, was a man deeply concerned with the issues of social justice and the egalitarian nature of God’s Kingdom. He wasn’t focused on individual salvation in the way later Christian theology suggests. In fact, much of his message was political and social in nature, calling for a transformation of society. The theological Jesus, particularly in the writings of Paul, shifted this focus to issues of sin and salvation, often at the expense of Jesus’ social message. The idea of Jesus as God comes much later and wasn’t part of his self-understanding or the understanding of his earliest followers.
Nick Sasaki: Karen, you’ve written about the development of religious doctrines across various traditions. How does this apply to the evolution of Jesus from a historical figure into a theological one?
Karen Armstrong: The evolution of Jesus into a divine figure reflects a common pattern in religious traditions. Over time, figures who start as prophets or reformers often become deified as their followers seek to establish a cohesive belief system. In Christianity, as in other traditions, the early followers of Jesus interpreted his life and death in ways that spoke to their needs, which led to the development of doctrines like the Trinity and salvation through belief. Theologically, Jesus became more than a prophet—he became God incarnate. But historically, this was not something Jesus himself claimed. It was a later construction that helped the early church solidify its identity and expand its influence.
Nick Sasaki: It sounds like the transformation of Jesus from a prophet to a divine figure was largely driven by the needs of the early Christian communities. Bart, coming back to you, what do you think were the key factors in this theological shift?
Bart Ehrman: Several factors were at play. One was the influence of Paul, who emphasized the death and resurrection of Jesus as the key to salvation. Another factor was the spread of Christianity into non-Jewish communities. As Gentiles converted, they brought with them different expectations about divinity and salvation, which influenced the theological development of Jesus as God. And, of course, the institutionalization of the church in the fourth century, particularly with the Council of Nicaea, played a critical role in defining Jesus as divine.
Nick Sasaki: This conversation highlights how deeply intertwined historical events, cultural shifts, and theological developments are in shaping the figure of Jesus. Thank you all for your insights. Let’s move on to our next topic: the development of the doctrine of Jesus' divinity.
The Development of the Doctrine of Jesus' Divinity
Nick Sasaki: We’ve just explored the distinction between the historical and theological Jesus, which naturally leads us to our next topic: the development of the doctrine of Jesus' divinity. This doctrine, which was formalized centuries after Jesus' death, has become central to mainstream Christian theology. But how did it emerge, and what were the key influences? John, since much of your research delves into early Christian history, could you start us off?
John Dominic Crossan: Certainly, Nick. The doctrine of Jesus’ divinity didn’t appear overnight. In fact, the earliest followers of Jesus didn’t worship him as God. They saw him as a prophet, a teacher, and the Messiah—a very Jewish concept rooted in their expectation of a coming deliverer. It was only after Jesus’ death, and more specifically after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, that his followers began to reflect on his role in a different way. Theologians and church leaders, particularly Paul, played a significant role in reinterpreting Jesus’ death and resurrection, which eventually contributed to the notion of Jesus as divine. This process unfolded over the course of several centuries, as the early church navigated theological disputes and sought to define its beliefs in a rapidly changing world.
Nick Sasaki: So, it was a gradual process influenced by different theological currents. Bart, you’ve written about how the New Testament texts reflect an evolution in the understanding of Jesus’ identity. How does that fit into this development of Jesus’ divinity?
Bart Ehrman: Absolutely, Nick. If you look at the New Testament, particularly the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), you see a much more human depiction of Jesus. In Mark, for example, Jesus is portrayed as a suffering Messiah who experiences emotions like fear and doubt. But by the time you get to John’s Gospel, written later, you start to see a more divine portrayal of Jesus—someone who claims a unique oneness with God. This progression continues as we move into the writings of Paul and later church leaders, who reinterpreted Jesus' resurrection as proof of his divinity. The idea that Jesus was God incarnate wasn’t something his early followers believed from the start; it developed over time, influenced by both Jewish messianic expectations and Greco-Roman ideas about divinity.
Nick Sasaki: That’s a crucial point, Bart. Reza, in Zealot, you argue that Jesus was originally seen as a revolutionary figure. How do you think the political and social environment of the early church contributed to the development of the idea of Jesus as divine?
Reza Aslan: I think the political context was critical. Early Christians were operating in a Roman Empire where divinity was often ascribed to emperors and other figures of authority. Jesus was initially a Jewish messianic figure, but as his followers moved into Gentile territory, they began to adopt the language and concepts of the surrounding culture. The idea of an emperor being a god wasn’t foreign to the Roman world, and it’s possible that this influenced the way Christians began to see Jesus. He wasn’t just a prophet anymore—he became the divine ruler of a spiritual kingdom. This theological evolution was also a way for the early Christians to assert their religious identity in a polytheistic world. By elevating Jesus to the status of God, they gave him ultimate authority, which helped the fledgling Christian movement survive and grow.
Nick Sasaki: Elaine, you’ve studied the diversity of early Christian beliefs, particularly the Gnostic sects. How did these alternative Christianities contribute to or challenge the development of the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity?
Elaine Pagels: The Gnostics provide a fascinating contrast to what eventually became orthodox Christian belief. Gnostic Christians often saw Jesus as a divine figure, but in a very different way. They didn’t necessarily view him as God incarnate, but as a messenger of divine wisdom, someone who could reveal hidden truths about the nature of the universe and the self. In some Gnostic texts, Jesus’ divinity is more spiritual than physical, and salvation comes through knowledge (gnosis), rather than belief in Jesus’ divinity per se. What’s interesting is that while Gnostic ideas were eventually deemed heretical by the early church, they were very influential in the first few centuries. The debates between Gnostic and orthodox Christians were part of the larger process of determining what the church would believe about Jesus. Ultimately, the orthodox position won out, but not without a significant amount of conflict and diversity in the early centuries.
Nick Sasaki: That diversity seems to have played a large role in shaping early Christian doctrine. Karen, you’ve written about how religious doctrines often evolve to meet the needs of communities. How do you see this applying to the development of Jesus’ divinity in the early church?
Karen Armstrong: The development of Jesus' divinity can be seen as a response to the needs of the early Christian community. Early Christians were a small, persecuted group, and they needed a strong figure who could offer hope and a sense of divine protection. As the community grew and spread into different cultures, the need for cohesion and unity also grew. By defining Jesus as God, the early church was able to unify diverse beliefs and solidify its identity. The doctrine of Jesus’ divinity became a way to assert the authority of the church and to offer Christians a figure they could turn to for salvation, especially in times of crisis. It’s also important to remember that doctrines often develop in response to external pressures. The Council of Nicaea, where the doctrine of the Trinity was formalized, came at a time when the Roman Empire was looking to unify religious practices across its vast territories. In many ways, the development of Jesus' divinity was both a spiritual and a political necessity.
Nick Sasaki: It’s clear that both internal theological debates and external political factors played a significant role in shaping the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity. John, do you think the Council of Nicaea was the turning point in this process?
John Dominic Crossan: I’d say it was definitely a major turning point, Nick. The Council of Nicaea in 325 CE was where the church officially declared that Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father, which cemented his divinity in orthodox Christian belief. This wasn’t just a theological decision—it was also a political one. Constantine, the Roman emperor at the time, was looking for a way to unify his empire, and a unified Christian doctrine helped serve that purpose. The Nicene Creed, which emerged from this council, defined orthodox belief for centuries to come, but it also suppressed alternative views that were still circulating at the time. The council was a key moment in the institutionalization of Christianity and the formalization of the belief in Jesus as divine.
Nick Sasaki: This discussion has really illuminated the complex factors that led to the development of Jesus’ divinity. From theological debates and political contexts to the diverse early Christian beliefs, it’s clear that this was not a simple or straightforward process. Let’s move on to our next topic: the role of Paul in shaping Christian theology and how his influence contributed to this evolution.
The Role of Paul in Shaping Christian Theology
Nick Sasaki: As we move into our next topic, we’re focusing on the Apostle Paul and his pivotal role in shaping Christian theology, particularly around the concept of Jesus’ divinity and salvation through faith. Paul’s letters are some of the earliest Christian writings, and his influence on the development of Christian doctrine is immense. Bart, let’s start with you—how did Paul’s teachings shape the theological framework of early Christianity?
Bart Ehrman: Paul was, without a doubt, the most influential figure in early Christianity aside from Jesus himself. What’s remarkable about Paul is that he never met the historical Jesus during his lifetime. His conversion experience happened after Jesus' crucifixion, and from that point forward, Paul preached a very specific version of Christianity that was focused not on the teachings of Jesus, but on his death and resurrection. Paul believed that salvation was available to anyone—not just Jews—who had faith in Jesus. This was revolutionary because it shifted the focus from following Jewish law, which had been central to Jesus’ message, to faith in Jesus as the risen Christ. Paul’s interpretation of Jesus as a divine figure who offered salvation to all through faith became the foundation of much of Christian theology.
Nick Sasaki: So Paul’s emphasis on faith over law was a major shift. Reza, how do you see Paul’s role in the transformation of Jesus from a Jewish messianic figure to a divine savior for all people?
Reza Aslan: Paul was instrumental in that transformation, Nick. As I’ve argued in Zealot, Jesus was primarily a Jewish nationalist who was concerned with liberating his people from Roman occupation. His message was rooted in Jewish law and tradition. But Paul, a Hellenized Jew who operated in a predominantly Gentile world, saw an opportunity to expand Jesus’ message beyond its Jewish context. Paul took the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection and turned it into a universal narrative of salvation. He didn’t emphasize Jesus' life or teachings, but rather focused on what he believed to be the theological implications of Jesus' resurrection. Paul essentially created the framework for what would become Christian orthodoxy, where salvation is achieved through faith in Jesus rather than adherence to Jewish law.
Nick Sasaki: Elaine, you’ve written about the diversity of early Christian beliefs, especially in the first few centuries. How did Paul’s theology become dominant over other interpretations of Jesus’ message?
Elaine Pagels: Paul’s theology became dominant for a few reasons, one of which was its adaptability to a Gentile audience. As Reza mentioned, Paul downplayed the role of Jewish law, making Christianity more accessible to non-Jews. But it wasn’t just theological flexibility that allowed Paul’s views to become dominant—it was also his extensive missionary work and his ability to establish Christian communities throughout the Roman Empire. His letters to these communities form a significant part of the New Testament, and his ideas were preserved and circulated widely. However, it’s important to remember that Paul’s theology wasn’t the only interpretation in the early church. There were other voices, such as those of the Gnostics and Jewish Christians, who had very different understandings of Jesus. But over time, as the church grew and sought to define orthodoxy, Paul’s vision of Christianity, which centered on Jesus' divine nature and salvation through faith, became the mainstream view.
Nick Sasaki: John, you’ve studied the historical context in which Paul was writing. How did the socio-political environment of the Roman Empire influence Paul’s theology and its spread?
John Dominic Crossan: The Roman Empire was absolutely critical to the spread of Paul’s theology. Paul himself was a Roman citizen, which allowed him to travel freely and communicate with diverse communities across the empire. He was able to reach a much broader audience than Jesus ever did. The socio-political context also played a role in how Paul framed his message. The Roman world was steeped in the idea of imperial power, and Paul’s portrayal of Jesus as a divine ruler—who had conquered death and now offered eternal life—would have resonated with many people in that context. Paul was very clever in the way he presented Jesus. He didn’t just preach a Jewish messiah; he presented Jesus as a cosmic figure, a savior for all humanity. This universal approach helped his theology gain traction across different cultural and religious landscapes within the empire.
Nick Sasaki: Karen, you’ve written about how religious doctrines evolve to meet the needs of the community. How do you see Paul’s theology evolving to address the needs of the early Christian communities?
Karen Armstrong: Paul’s theology, especially his emphasis on salvation through faith, provided early Christians with a sense of hope and security in a world that was often hostile to their beliefs. Many of the early Christian communities Paul wrote to were small, marginalized groups living under Roman rule. By focusing on the resurrection and the promise of eternal life, Paul offered these communities a vision of hope that transcended their current struggles. His message of salvation through faith in Jesus was not just spiritually compelling; it was also emotionally and psychologically reassuring. It allowed people to feel part of a larger, divine plan. Over time, this message helped solidify the identity of Christian communities as distinct from their Jewish roots and gave them a unified belief system that could withstand external pressures.
Nick Sasaki: That’s an insightful way of looking at Paul’s theology as both a spiritual and social tool for unifying early Christian communities. Bart, going back to you—how did Paul’s letters, particularly his focus on Jesus’ resurrection, become so central to Christian theology?
Bart Ehrman: Paul’s letters are some of the earliest Christian writings we have, and they were widely circulated among early Christian communities. In these letters, Paul placed a huge emphasis on Jesus’ resurrection, which he saw as the key to understanding Jesus’ divine role. For Paul, the resurrection wasn’t just a miraculous event; it was the proof that Jesus was the Son of God and that faith in him could bring eternal life. This focus on the resurrection became central to Christian theology, and later writings—like the Gospels—were heavily influenced by this idea. Paul’s letters, especially Romans and 1 Corinthians, became foundational texts for the early church, and his interpretation of Jesus’ life and death as part of God’s plan for salvation shaped Christian doctrine for centuries to come.
Nick Sasaki: Paul’s influence is certainly undeniable in shaping what Christianity would become. Reza, as we wrap up this topic, how would you summarize Paul’s lasting impact on the development of Christian theology?
Reza Aslan: Paul’s lasting impact lies in his ability to transform the Jesus movement from a small, Jewish sect into a global religion. By focusing on faith in Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul created a theological framework that appealed to both Jews and Gentiles, allowing Christianity to grow beyond its original boundaries. His vision of Jesus as a divine savior who offered universal salvation became the foundation of Christian orthodoxy. Without Paul, it’s unlikely that Christianity would have spread as far or as quickly as it did. In many ways, Paul was the architect of Christian theology as we know it.
Nick Sasaki: Thank you all for such a rich and engaging discussion on Paul’s role in shaping Christian theology. Next, we’ll explore how Gnostic and alternative Christianities challenged the development of orthodox beliefs about Jesus.
Gnostic and Alternative Christianities: Lost Voices
Nick Sasaki: We’ve talked about the dominant narrative of Jesus' divinity and Paul’s role in shaping that theology, but there were other voices in early Christianity. Many alternative Christianities, such as the Gnostics, offered different interpretations of Jesus and his message. These views were eventually deemed heretical, but they offer fascinating insights into the diversity of early Christian thought. Elaine, as a scholar of Gnosticism, could you start by explaining how the Gnostics viewed Jesus and how their beliefs diverged from the developing orthodox views?
Elaine Pagels: Sure, Nick. The Gnostics were a diverse group of early Christians who had very different interpretations of Jesus compared to what became the orthodox view. For many Gnostic Christians, Jesus was seen less as a literal incarnation of God and more as a divine figure who imparted secret knowledge—gnosis—that could lead individuals to spiritual enlightenment. They believed that salvation wasn’t achieved through faith in Jesus' death and resurrection, but through understanding the hidden, spiritual truths about the world and oneself. The Gnostics saw the material world as inherently flawed, created by a lesser deity, and believed that Jesus came to guide souls away from the material world toward spiritual liberation. This perspective was in stark contrast to the emerging orthodox Christian belief, which emphasized Jesus’ physical resurrection and his role as the savior of all humanity through faith.
Nick Sasaki: That’s quite a contrast. John, how did the early church respond to these alternative views, and why were they ultimately marginalized?
John Dominic Crossan: The early church was very concerned with unity, especially as it grew and spread throughout the Roman Empire. The diversity of beliefs, such as those found in Gnostic Christianity, posed a challenge to the formation of a cohesive Christian identity. Leaders like Irenaeus in the second century wrote extensively against what they called heresies, including Gnosticism. The orthodox church sought to create a uniform set of beliefs, and the idea of Jesus as God incarnate, who died and was resurrected for humanity's salvation, became central to that effort. Gnostic beliefs, with their emphasis on secret knowledge and a more symbolic interpretation of Jesus, didn’t fit into the framework that the church was building. Over time, these alternative Christianities were pushed to the margins, and many of their texts were destroyed or lost.
Nick Sasaki: Reza, you’ve studied early Christianity’s political and social contexts. What do you think were the broader reasons that Gnostic Christianity was suppressed?
Reza Aslan: The suppression of Gnostic and other alternative Christianities was as much a political decision as it was a theological one. As Christianity began to grow in the Roman Empire, especially after Constantine's conversion in the 4th century, there was a need for a unified doctrine that could serve as the basis for the state’s new official religion. Gnostic beliefs, which were often individualistic and esoteric, didn’t lend themselves to the kind of hierarchical structure and theological clarity that the church needed to thrive within the empire. Additionally, the Gnostic focus on personal spiritual enlightenment threatened the authority of the institutional church. If salvation was achieved through secret knowledge, then the church’s role as the mediator of salvation through sacraments and doctrine was diminished. To maintain its power and influence, the church had to delegitimize these alternative views and establish itself as the sole authority on Christian belief.
Nick Sasaki: That’s a fascinating point about the church’s role in consolidating power. Bart, from a historical perspective, how do we know about these alternative Christianities, given that many of their texts were lost or destroyed?
Bart Ehrman: We’re incredibly fortunate to have sources like the Nag Hammadi texts, which were discovered in Egypt in 1945. These texts, which include the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and other Gnostic writings, give us a glimpse into the diversity of early Christian thought. Before the discovery of these texts, much of what we knew about Gnosticism came from the writings of church fathers like Irenaeus, who were hostile to these beliefs. Their accounts were obviously biased, as they were trying to refute what they considered heresies. The Nag Hammadi texts allow us to see Gnostic Christianity in its own words, which provides a much more nuanced understanding of their beliefs. These texts show us that early Christianity wasn’t monolithic—it was a vibrant, diverse movement with many competing ideas about who Jesus was and what his message meant.
Nick Sasaki: Karen, you’ve written about how religious traditions often evolve by suppressing certain beliefs while promoting others. How does this dynamic play out in the case of Gnostic and alternative Christianities?
Karen Armstrong: This dynamic is very common in the history of religions. As religious movements grow, they often have to define themselves against alternative views to establish a clear identity. In the case of Christianity, the church’s leaders needed to create a unified doctrine to strengthen the movement and present it as the true faith. This meant that alternative beliefs, like Gnosticism, were not just ignored but actively suppressed. The process of creating orthodoxy involved deciding which texts would be included in the canon and which would be excluded, which beliefs would be deemed heretical, and which would be upheld as truth. It’s important to remember that the Gnostics weren’t trying to be heretical—they believed they were the true Christians. But as the church became more institutionalized, the diversity that existed in the early centuries was no longer tolerated. The Gnostics, with their focus on individual spiritual knowledge, didn’t fit into the institutional church’s vision of salvation through the church and its sacraments.
Nick Sasaki: That process of defining orthodoxy seems to have been crucial in shaping the Christianity we know today. Elaine, given your deep research into Gnostic texts, what do you think modern Christianity could learn from these lost voices?
Elaine Pagels: I think one of the most valuable things we can learn from the Gnostics is their emphasis on personal spiritual experience. For the Gnostics, knowing God wasn’t about believing in a set of doctrines or participating in rituals; it was about direct, personal knowledge of the divine. This kind of spirituality, which emphasizes inner experience and transformation, can be very appealing to people today who are seeking a more personal connection with the divine. Additionally, the Gnostic belief that the material world is flawed and that salvation comes from transcending it resonates with some modern spiritual movements. While orthodox Christianity emphasizes the resurrection of the body and the goodness of creation, the Gnostics remind us that there are alternative ways of understanding our relationship to the world and to God. Their voices were lost for centuries, but I think they still have much to offer to contemporary spiritual seekers.
Nick Sasaki: That’s a powerful insight, Elaine. It’s clear that these lost voices of Gnostic and alternative Christianities challenge the dominant narratives of Jesus and offer a more mystical, individual path to understanding the divine. Thank you all for sharing your thoughts. Let’s move to our final topic: the idea of salvation itself, and whether it is a man-made doctrine or a core message of Jesus.
Salvation in Christianity: Man-Made Doctrine or Core Message?
Nick Sasaki: We’ve had an insightful journey through the development of Christian theology, particularly the role of Jesus’ divinity and the diversity of early Christian thought. Now, let’s focus on one of the central themes of Christianity: salvation. The question of whether salvation through belief in Jesus is a man-made doctrine or a core message of Jesus himself is something many people still wrestle with today. Let’s begin with Bart. From your study of the New Testament, how much of the concept of salvation as we understand it today can be traced back to Jesus, and how much was developed later?
Bart Ehrman: That’s a great question, Nick. When we look at the historical Jesus—what scholars can discern from the earliest sources—it’s clear that Jesus was focused on the coming Kingdom of God and the transformation of the world. His message was about justice, the reversal of social orders, and God’s direct intervention in human affairs. He spoke of salvation in terms of the collective redemption of Israel, not individual salvation through belief in himself. The idea that salvation comes by simply believing in Jesus is largely a later development, particularly shaped by Paul’s writings. Paul interpreted Jesus’ death and resurrection as the ultimate act of salvation for individuals, something that could be accessed by faith alone. So while Jesus likely saw himself as playing a role in God’s redemptive plan, the idea that faith in him specifically grants salvation was not part of his core message—it emerged later as Christian theology evolved.
Nick Sasaki: So, Paul plays a major role again in shaping how we think about salvation today. Reza, what’s your take on this? How do you think the concept of salvation evolved from Jesus’ teachings?
Reza Aslan: I agree with Bart on this. The historical Jesus wasn’t concerned with individual salvation in the sense that later Christian theology emphasizes. Jesus was a Jewish reformer who was primarily concerned with social justice and the liberation of his people from Roman oppression. His vision of salvation was collective—it was about the redemption of Israel and the establishment of God’s rule on earth. The notion that simply believing in Jesus would save you wasn’t part of his original message. That concept developed later, largely through Paul, who reinterpreted Jesus' death as a cosmic event that offered salvation to all people, not just Jews. Paul’s theology is what gave Christianity its universal appeal, but it’s important to distinguish that this was a theological development, not something Jesus himself explicitly taught.
Nick Sasaki: Elaine, considering your work on early Christian texts, how do you think the diverse views on salvation within early Christianity contributed to the development of this doctrine?
Elaine Pagels: Early Christianity was incredibly diverse, and there were many competing views on what salvation meant. Some early Christian groups, like the Gnostics, didn’t see salvation as something tied to Jesus’ death and resurrection at all. For them, salvation was about gaining spiritual knowledge—gnosis—and transcending the material world. Other groups, such as the Jewish Christians, may have seen salvation as more closely tied to following Jewish law, in addition to accepting Jesus as the Messiah. The version of salvation that eventually became dominant—salvation through faith in Jesus' death and resurrection—was the result of a long process of negotiation and debate within the early church. Over time, the church adopted Paul’s interpretation, which was easier to universalize and didn’t require adherence to Jewish law, making it more accessible to Gentiles. But the fact that there were so many different views early on shows that the idea of salvation through belief in Jesus was not a universally accepted concept from the start—it was one of many interpretations that eventually became the official doctrine.
Nick Sasaki: That makes a lot of sense. John, you’ve worked extensively on the historical context in which these ideas developed. How do you see the socio-political environment of the early church influencing the development of the idea of salvation?
John Dominic Crossan: The socio-political environment was crucial in shaping the idea of salvation. Early Christians were living in a world dominated by the Roman Empire, where salvation had a very political meaning. In the Roman world, the emperor was often seen as a savior figure—he provided peace, prosperity, and security to the empire. Early Christians, many of whom were marginalized and oppressed, redefined salvation in a very different way. For them, salvation wasn’t about the emperor’s power or material security; it was about being part of God’s Kingdom, which was coming to overthrow the injustices of the world. Paul, as we’ve discussed, took this idea further by focusing on Jesus’ death and resurrection as the key to salvation. By doing so, Paul offered a way for individuals to attain salvation that transcended the political realities of their time. This was a powerful message, especially for people living under Roman rule, and it helped Christianity grow. But it’s important to note that this version of salvation wasn’t just about personal belief—it was also a response to the socio-political context in which early Christians found themselves.
Nick Sasaki: That’s a fascinating perspective on how salvation took on different meanings in response to external pressures. Karen, what can modern Christians learn from the way early Christians debated and developed the doctrine of salvation?
Karen Armstrong: One of the key lessons modern Christians can take from early Christianity is the importance of diversity and dialogue. In the first few centuries, there was no single, unified view of salvation. Different groups had different ideas, and these ideas were debated and discussed. I think it’s a reminder that religious doctrines evolve and are shaped by the historical and cultural contexts in which they emerge. Salvation, as it’s understood today, is not a static concept—it developed over time as early Christians wrestled with questions of faith, law, and the role of Jesus. For modern Christians, this history can be liberating. It suggests that faith doesn’t have to be rigid or dogmatic; it can be a living, evolving tradition that responds to the needs of its time. We can learn from the early Christians that theological ideas don’t come from a single source—they emerge from the lived experiences of the community.
Nick Sasaki: That’s a profound takeaway, Karen. Bart, as we close this discussion, how do you think the early church’s development of the doctrine of salvation reflects the larger evolution of Christian belief?
Bart Ehrman: The development of the doctrine of salvation is a microcosm of the larger evolution of Christian belief. Early Christianity was a dynamic and diverse movement, and ideas about salvation, Jesus, and the Kingdom of God were all in flux. What became the dominant view—the idea that salvation comes through faith in Jesus' death and resurrection—was shaped by a combination of theological reflection, social pressures, and political necessity. Over time, this view was codified into doctrine, but it’s important to remember that it wasn’t inevitable. There were many competing views that could have won out. The story of how salvation became central to Christian theology reflects the broader story of how Christianity itself developed from a small Jewish sect into a global religion.
Nick Sasaki: Thank you all for such a rich and enlightening conversation. It’s been fascinating to trace the evolution of Christian thought and how these ideas about salvation, divinity, and belief were shaped over time. Each of your perspectives has brought depth to this topic. It’s clear that understanding the origins and development of these beliefs can offer fresh insights into modern faith and spirituality.
Short Bios:
Bart Ehrman: A renowned New Testament scholar and historian, Bart Ehrman specializes in the historical study of early Christianity. He has written extensively about the historical Jesus, the development of Christian beliefs, and the formation of the New Testament.
Reza Aslan: A scholar of religion and author of Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, Reza Aslan explores the historical Jesus and the political and social contexts that shaped his life and legacy.
Elaine Pagels: A prominent scholar of early Christianity and Gnosticism, Elaine Pagels is known for her work on the diversity of early Christian beliefs and her groundbreaking book The Gnostic Gospels.
John Dominic Crossan: A co-founder of the Jesus Seminar and an expert in the historical Jesus, John Dominic Crossan focuses on the socio-political context of Jesus' life and the early Christian movement.
Karen Armstrong: A historian of religion, Karen Armstrong has written extensively about the development of religious doctrines and traditions, with a focus on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
Leave a Reply