(2 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading...Here’s a draft of another key bit from my chapter 1 of How Jesus Became God
************************************************************************************************************************
From these various examples, we can see a variety of ways that divine beings could be thought to be human and that humans could be though to be divine in the ancient world. I scarcely need to stress again that this way of looking at things stands considerably at odds with how most people understand the relationship of the human and the divine in our world, at least people who stand in the western religious tradition (Jews, Christians, Muslims). As I have noted already, in our world it is widely thought that the divine realm is separated from the human by an immense and unbridgeable chasm. God is one thing. Humans are another thing. And never the twain shall meet. Well, almost never: in the Christian tradition they did meet once, in the person of Jesus. And our question is how that was thought to have happened. At the root of that thought, as I will be arguing, is a different sensibility about the world, one in which divinity is not absolutely remote from humanity, but relatively remote.
In this ancient way of thinking, both humanity and divinity are on a continuum, and these two continuums sometimes meet at the high end of the one and the low end of the one. We too in the modern world often think of humans as being on a kind of continuum. There are some people who are smarter, more athletic, and/or more beautiful than the rest of us. In fact, some people are fantastically smart, athletic, and beautiful. If Albert Einstein, LeBron James, and Penelope Cruz are not exactly gods and a goddess, they are oh so much more so than the couple who lives next door.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!!
Bart, you say, “Apart from Jews in the ancient world – about whom I will be speaking in the next chapter – everyone was a polytheist. There were lots of gods, and they were on graded levels of divinity.”
The Hebrew Patriarchs and prophets of old viewed the Cosmos in much the same way as the Egyptians, Babylonians, Sumerians, Greeks, etc. They all had a different nomenclature, of course, but they differed not in the belief of a hierarchy of gods. Even a good many of the common Israelites, especially in the Northern Kingdom, had the same metaphysical view of Reality. Psalms 82; 86:8; 89:5-7 are a few scriptural references that come to mind. Idolatry was condemned by the prophets but not the belief and practice of communicating with the Lord and his hosts.
One especially convincing argument for this is found in 1 Kings 22:19-15, where Micaiah ben Imlah, a true prophet of YHWH, goes into his “inner room” and converses with YHWH and his council about the plight of King Ahab. One of his hosts-congregation-spirits-angels-gods, whatever one wishes to call them, tells YHWH how he can entice Ahab to fall at Ramoth-gilead. All the other gods had their opinions (v. 20), but YHWH was more interested in the one who could produce the result he wanted. “How,” asked YHWH, “are you going to entice Ahab.” This god-spirit of YHWH was to put a deceiving spirit in Ahab’s prophets (“about 400 of them” – v. 6), all of whom predicted Ahab would prosper. Except one, of course – Micaiah, who Ahab hated because he rarely predicted what the other prophets predicted. One of those prophets, Zedekiah, went up to Micaiah and slapped him for saying that Ahab would be defeated, asking, “how did the Spirit of the Lord pass from me to speak to you?” ANSWER: “Behold, you shall see on the day when you enter an inner room to hide yourself” (v.25).
The kingdom of God and his hosts are not so far away from us that we can’t communicate with them. It only requires going into an “inner room,” Micaiah says. There was another true prophet who said much the same thing (Luke 17:21). He was rejected as well.
On reading your last few posts I’ve been thinking about some issues regarding the title of your book and about how the ancients understood God (or gods). I’m just throwing out some of my thoughts here; ideas that tend to confuse me.
The title of your book is “How Jesus Became God”…this assumes that he wasn’t God and then became God…That title is quite different from one such as “The Divinity of Jesus” or “Is Jesus God?” Your title puts the issue in the past whereas other titles might place it in the present.
Your title is correct given you are examining how ancient people who were followers of Jesus began to understand Jesus as being some for of God 2000 years ago. Those people would rightly develop a belief that Jesus is God from various influences including the stories of Jesus resurrection and what you state above that the environment within which Jesus lived believed in many gods, except for the Jews and Jesus. Those influences could easily lead people with such a world view as existed then to develop such beliefs.
However, the belief 2000 years ago that Jesus became God doesn’t make it true. Jesus could be as human as you and me regardless of what the ancients believed.
If the tomb of Jesus is found with a pile of bones with a purple robe with JC sewn on the lapel he would still not be God even if generations of followers believed he was God and even more followers today believe him to be God. There are those who say his tomb has been found including bone fragments, but little is mentioned in the media regarding this and believers today say those who found this tomb are a bit wacko.
So, what I am saying here does not affect your book…you are looking at the history of how the belief that Jesus became God began. It is a history book.
What I look at as a layman is our belief today…do we now have any reason to believe that Jesus is God? Should we even continue to believe that Jesus is God? What’s the basis for that belief?
I personally view God (by whatever names we use) to be totally unknowable…infinite. I think of Jesus as human…finite. It is my opinion that the finite can not become infinite…of the same essence as God.
I mention all of this for one reason…you are not going to try to prove that Jesus is God or that Jesus is not God in your book. Even though it is not a scholarly writing you will still be presenting a resume of the historical and textual data on this issue but will give no opinion on whether Jesus was / is God or is not God.
Those who buy your book may be expecting that you will try to do just that….to give your opinion one way or another. Since I assume that you will not be doing that, do you find that to be an issue with regard to the attraction of your book to those who may be expecting an answer to this question: **If Jesus became God in the minds of his early followers, is Jesus then truly God now?** as the creeds state?
In other words, your other books make a point…they take a position…there were forgers in the writing of the documents….Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher….Jesus did exist. So, are you going to be neutral in this book or are you going to make a conclusion one way or the other…Jesus was God or Jesus was not God?
Thanks for your extensive comments. No, I am not making a theological claim (one way or the other) in this book. I am sketching out, historically, how Jesus went from begin seen as a human to being seen as God — the Creator of the universe and equal to God himself. Whether he was that or not is a matter for theologians to decide, not historians!
Good…and forgive my lengthy questions. I often get carried away. Thank you for your response.
Just a thought…what about “Satan,” or whatever the Jews of that era called him? You’ve said they’d developed dualistic ideas a couple centuries before the time of Jesus, right? And that was influenced by Zoroastrianism?
I realize Christians don’t think of “Satan” as being divine – he’s supposedly an “angel” who rebelled – but doesn’t this dualistic view suggest two “gods” in the older sense, one good and the other evil?
Satan certainly was conceived of as a divine being, like other members of God’s “divine council.” He later came to be thought of as God’s opponent- but that was later.
But there were other opponents to God right from the start? Like the Leviathan etc? Although the Leviathan seems to be an ‘evil beast’ rather than a ‘fallen angel’ … But still it’s described as kind of a powerful enemy of God.
Yup, in the misty origins of Israelite religion!
Doesn’t this verse sound lIke a kind of divinity was bestowed on man or the man?
Genesis 3:22
Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever
Good point. But there humans are “like” God in one respect — not gods themselves, I would say.
This is probably not relevant as far as Jesus as God is concerned but hadn’t the early Israelites been polytheists too though? Or that they at least acknowledged the existence of other gods while, of course, claiming that their tribal god (YHWH) was the bestest of all, etc … ? This then, over time, turned into the Jewish monotheism that we’re familiar with today.
Yes, there is a strong henotheistic tradition in ancient Israel. And many Israelites obviously were polytheists (otherwise there wouldn’t be so much polemic about it…)
It’s rather dubious and/or duplicitous to speak of the “Lord of hosts” without recognizing who the hosts are and their importance in the “congregation of the gods’ (Ps. 82:1). I’d venture to say that 99% of Christians, Jews and Moslems today do not recognize them, do not communicate with them, or they only give a suspect acknowledgment of just a few, e.g., Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, etc., as good, whereas Lucifer, Belial, Azazel, etc., are their enemies. They certainly do not communicate with them, despite 1 Kings 22:19; -25; Jer. 23:18, 22; Ps. 33:6-7; 148:1-6; Luke 2:13, etc. They recognize YHWH as the “God of gods,” but they basically deny or denigrate his hosts! Now, what kind of follower of YHWH would do this?
The tendency of the Israelites towards YHWH monolatry under the Assyrian domination of Judah is exhibited in their rejection of the astralized host of heaven, all to their detriment and downfall, I would say. It’s one thing to forbid idolatry and to repress the influence of another worshiping culture, quite another to minimalize or reject the “work of his hands” – is this not a euphemism of the “Lord of hosts?” (Deut. 4:19; 2 Chr. 18:18; Ps. 96:5; 111:2; 138:8, etc.). This YHWH monolatry has persisted until today, and if you really want to be a thorn in the side of monotheists, just dwell on this underlying cause of their destruction.
You’re VERY wrong.. Charlize Theron is a goddess, and Eric Clapton IS God. 🙂 On a more serious note.. I was raised Catholic and a lot of old time Catholics would see priests almost on a sub Jesus like level….with Bishops ranking even higher….. and on up… the pope being Peter. Granted they aren’t deities, but after reading how you describe the views of the ancients, you can see how people rank the more important powerful people as lesser gods. I’ve been amazed talking to American evangelicals that seem to see God as a man. They almost act as if Jesus was a Southern man/ God. Jesus being exalted you can follow the reasoning. Viewing God as a man seems… disrespectful.
Dr. Ehrman, I am a new member and I’m wondering what you think happened to Jesus’ body following the crucifixion. I read at one time this scenario: Jesus was removed from the cross by the same people who put him on it – the Roman soldiers. His body was taken to an obscure location, buried in a shallow grave, to be later dug up by wild dogs perhaps. (Hard to worship anyone who ended up like that) This makes sense to me, does it seem plausible to you?
I have three of your Teaching Company courses, and three of your books, and look upon you as a mentor.
That’s the view that Dom Crossan sets forth. I always thought it was hilariously wrong and way too speculative — until I started actually looking into the matter carefully. I’ll be addressing it in my book.
Dr. Ehrman
In Deuteronomy 32:8 who are the sons of God?
I”m holding off answering this until I get home and can look it up (I’m on the road without any books). You may need to ask again — if so, apologies!
http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/32-8.htm Most translations seem to be in favour of “sons of Israel”. What was your take on that in the end Bart?
Thanks,
John
I don’t have my books with me (I’m in Puerto Rico), but I looked on line and the Hebrew text appears to read quite plainly “sons of Israel”
This is my first post so apologies if not kosher(!!!) in some way.
I’m puzzled about statements I have seen that paganism never addressed morality and ethics. Yet I am reading that one of the common accusations made against apparently both Christians and Jews, perhaps mainly the former, is all manner of villainy, depravity, etc., ALL IN THE NAME OR SAKE OF THEIR GOD, while the pagans claim, as best I can opine, that their gods are driven show and better root (in some manner unclear to me) of morality/ethics.
It’s not quite right to say that “paganism” had no interest in ethics/morality. Pagan cults did not focus on that, any more than they focused on chariot races. But pagan people — that is, people who participated in pagan cults — were often highly concerned with ethics / morality. But that was a matter of philosophy, not cult (just as chariot racing was a matter of urban culture and elite competition, rather than cult)
Thank you,
The oft-mentioned statement of Yahweh being absolutely the only deity concerned with human ethical behavior has intrigued me. I have wondered why and how that may have come about in the human psychological, cultural, societal, political, and all that, makeup. I imagine the history is typically muddy.
Transition from Pagan orientation to Jewish and I guess also Zoroastrian and the Egyptian example of (more or less?) Monotheism seems possibly significant — certainly a stimulating turn of events!
Only thought come to my own mind as a woeful outsider to these disciplines is suggested by the notion of ‘mystic’ Karma, which is evocative of the universal ‘golden-rule’ idea. Affixing something like that to the list of conjectured deific interventions might not be unexpected.
Ive often heard people say that the Trinity is of a pagan origin. I dont know much of what people believed about the divine realm in antiquity or if there was any possible influence pagans could of had on christians to borrow such an idea. Any thoughts about such a claim Mr. Erhman ? Thank you.
This is the topic of my book, How Jesus Became God.
I loved the book, read it about a year ago. I had been a reader of The Urantia Book for many years, and How Jesus Became God really put it into perspective for me… The Urantia Book goes to great lengths to square all the paradoxes of scripture with the modern world. It’s a hoax, but somebody put a whole lot of thought into it… and it may represent the pinnacle of Christian theology today.