Loading...I was reminiscing of days gone by (“Things just ain’t like they used to be. And they never were.”) and browsing through some old posts, and came upon this one. It’s an interview I rather enjoyed from 2014, on my then-new book How Jesus Became God. Hope you like it too.
How Jesus Became God
As I have said before, every author who has done reasonably well selling trade books for a general audience knows that what drives sales is not the outstanding quality of a book — lots of terrific books go nowhere in sales, and others that are truly lousy end up being bestsellers — or in advertising. It’s all about media attention. When it comes to radio, one of the very best, top-flight programs to land is Fresh Air with Terry Gross. I don’t know this for a fact, but someone has told me that the show has 4.5 million listeners. That’s a lot.
Terry Gross and How Jesus Became God
I have been on Terry Gross six times now, and have enjoyed it immensely each time. She is absolutely fantastic as an interviewer. She’s smart, insightful, and curious. She knows how to ask the right questions. She knows how to direct a conversation. She lets her guest talk. She makes her guest feel comfortable and free to discuss openly the important aspects of the book s/he has authored. It is a great experience. And it makes a huge difference in sales. If the point of writing a book is to get people to read it, interviews such as those that Terry Gross gives are absolutely spectacular.
I did my sixth interview with her on April 7 [2014], two weeks ago, on How Jesus Became God. Here is the interview, in case you have not yet heard it.
Please adjust the gear icon for 720p High-Definition:
I haven’t read *that* many books on early Christianity to have an authoritative view on the matter, but I can’t help but feel that this particular one will be considered one of the classics. It just blew my mind to read so many fascinating stuff about Jesus, notions of divinity in antiquity, philosophy of historiography, modern scientific findings on visions, Roman crucifixion practices, New Testament secret wormholes to Jesus’s first followers and so much more! I mean, it’s just one of these books that can drastically alter your perception of a certain issue, because the evidence put forward is so compelling. Just an amazing, mind blowing book! Vintage Bart Ehrman!
Dr. Ehrman,
I’ll certainly watch the YouTube link. Maybe it answers the question I’m about to ask:
Did the concept of Jesus being the “Son of God” alone imply that he was essentially “God” in the flesh? Or did it just mean that he was God’s son who had God’s DNA in him so to speak, but not the same as God?
In other words, did Paul view God (Yahweh) as distinctive from his Son? Like two different entities, but Jesus resembled God since he was his Son and had a lot of the same traits?
I’d say those are slightly different question, one about the concept and the other about Paul’s view. I’d suggest you read my book because I explain it theree at length. Being the Son of God did not make a person divine necessarily (see, e.g., 2 Sam 7:11-14: Solomon, of all people, was “The Son of God.”). There was a range of views in ancient Judaism about the son of God. Paul absolutely saw Yahweh as distinct from Jesus. His views are not easy to summarize, but if you look up “incarnatoin” you’ll see a range of discussions about Paul’s views and others.
You should really read this book, it will blow your mind and all of your questions are going to be addressed. The whole point of the book is that Jesus’s divine status underwent consecutive reconsiderations as Christian theology got more and more refined (and cunning).
Bart, the common definition of “peasant” is a poor person of low social status who owns or rents a small piece of land for farming. When you say in your interview that Jesus was a peasant, I don’t think you could mean exactly that, or do you? Do you think “peasant” better describes Jesus than “artisan”?
My sense is that probably everyone in rural areas of Galilee had a small plot on which they grew much of their food. But even so, for me the important aspect of “peasant” is no thte land but the poverty and low classs/status.
The author of Luke-Acts has a response to Marcion. The author would accept Marcion’s hero Paul without the theology of his epistles. To do so the author replaced Marcion’s canon with a two-volume work of his own. He merely expanded Marcion’s gospel with added traditions, but he rejected entirely the Pauline epistles as theologically unacceptable.
John T. Townsend, “The Dating of Luke-Acts” … in Charles Talbert (ed.), “Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar” (1984) p. 56-58
= = =
People have come to accept that the gospel of Luke partially comes from Q.
Bart, would you agree with John T. Townsend that the gospel of Luke partially comes from Marcion’s gospel? If not, why?
Bart, given your review of The First New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon by Jason D. BeDuhn, you have read Marcion’s gospel, does Marcion’s gospel partially come from Q?
I completely disagree with that view and it has gotten almost no traction among scholars. One reason: it is very difficult to date Marcion’s work prior to the 140s, and Luke is almost certainly not that late.
Wikipedia
Marcion of Sinope 85 to 160 AD
Bart D.E.
“Luke is almost certainly not that late (140s AD).”
Steefen
I do not know how much of Q is in Marcion’s gospel (the question asked).
I do not know if Marcion’s gospel is greater than or equal to 51% Luke.
John Townsend has given us more than one thing to think about.
With enough of Marcion’s gospel being Luke, Marcion’s gospel probably is not an original work.
Probably Marcion edited Luke’s gospel if there wasn’t a First Edition Luke followed by a Second Edition Luke.
Back in 2015, Luke’s Acts of the Apostles had a date range from 80-150.
Townsend does not deserve to be judged in error for saying Luke rejected parts of Paul.
Luke should be faulted for (decades later) rewriting Paul’s biographical information in Paul’s authentic letters. Luke can take from Paul’s legacy to strengthen his version of the apostles after the gospels end. Luke cannot even consult history to put Judah/Judas of Galilee (6 CE) before Theudas (44-46 CE).
A dissertation was just completed last year dealing with this by a Duke NT student Ian Mills, which I’m sure will be published, showing that Marcion in fact was following the approach to editing as were Matthew and Luke.
I saw a Christian argue that the ending of Mark implies something different than we think.
“The women didn’t tell anyone” would then mean not telling anyone except for the disciples. Just like when Jesus healed the leper and he instructed them to not tell anyone except for the high priest.
Is there any truth to this view? Why or why not?
Also, do you think the disciples actually fled after Jesus died?
Why or why not?
IF you believe they did because of the principle of embarrasment, why doesn’t that apply to women at the tomb?
Nope, the passage absolutely does not say that and so almost certainly does not mean that. The whole point is that they were told to tell the disciples (and only them, not anyone else) and they didn’t tell anyone. It’s actually emphatic in the Greek: they didn’t tell anyone anything! You can see why some readers of the Bible would prefer it said something else, but my view is that it’s better to read what the text actually says if you want to know what the author actually means.
Thank you, I understand!
With all due respect: What do you think about the second question?
“Do you think the disciples actually fled after Jesus died?
Why or why not?
IF you believe they did because of the principle of embarrasment, why doesn’t that apply to women at the tomb?”
Ah, I answered twice, the second time even the second question!
You comment in your interview with Terry Gross that the belief that Jesus was the Son of God was more important to the success of Christianity than the belief in his resurrection. If Jesus had not been declared Son of God there would have been no converts.
Since Paul made converts with his claim that Jesus was the Son of God whereas disciple’s converts in Judea died out, does this not support the view that the disciples believed that Jesus was a human Messiah who had been resurrected in the same way that he had resurrected others, but was not the Son of God?
I don’t think I understand the logic you’re laying out. Why would Paul’s message show that Jesus’ own disciples did not think Jesus was the Son of God? Paul and the disciples almost certainly agreed that Jesus was the Son of God who had died for the sins of others and then been raised from the dead.
The point that I am suggesting is that Paul’s converts multiplied because they believed that Jesus was the Son of God whereas the disciples’ converts died out because they believed that Jesus was a human Messiah who had been resurrected in the same way that he had resurrected others.
Ah, got it. I’m pretty sure the earliest disciples thought that Jesus was the Son of God who had been raised up to heaven after his death and made a divine being. I explain why that seems likely in my book How Jesus Became God. There were some differences from Paul: the earliest followers of Jesus did not think that he wa a pre-existent divine being. But they agreed wth Paul that he was human, Jewish, born into the world, resurrected, and exalted by God.
Ah, got it. I’m pretty sure the earliest disciples thought that Jesus was the Son of God who had been raised up to heaven after his death and made a divine being. I explain why that seems likely in my book How Jesus Became God. There were some differences from Paul: the earliest followers of Jesus did not think that he wa a pre-existent divine being. But they agreed wth Paul that he was human, Jewish, born into the world, resurrected, and exalted by God.
I’ll have to check out Jesus of Montreal. I appreciate the suggestion.
Do you think Joseph of Arimathea was a historical figure? What is the plausibility of a wealthy follower of Jesus bribing a Roman centurion to take the body down from the cross? Is there any historical documentation of people bribing centurions for special favors?
No I don’t. I think it’s not plausible at all. He actually doesn’t bribe a centurion in the story; he goes straight to the governor of Judea and makes a request. Romans left bodies on the crosses to decompose and be subject to the elements and scavengers; they didn’t politely hand victims over to be buried right after they died — never in any of our records by Romans themselves.
Let me put it a different way. Take Joseph of Arimathea out of it. Take Pilate out of it. Is it contextual to the time period (Late Antiquity) for anyone to bribe a centurion? Hypothetically: Would anyone bribing a centurion to take Jesus’ body off the cross at some point be considered to meet the criteria of dissimilarity? Wouldn’t bribery be considered scandalous or wrong and the early Christians would have been uncomfortable with that part of the story (hypothetically) being perpetuated?
No, we don’t know of that from any historical references — at leaast I don’t. So I guess the qeustion is what evidence would be convincing that there was a bribe. I.e., what would make us prefer that option to others?
For what it’s worth I agree with you about the likely fictionality of the Joseph of Arimathea story. Let’s suppose that Jesus simply rotted away for a time and then perhaps got tossed into some sort of mass grave. All of the tales about a tomb, a visit to an empty tomb by various followers of Jesus, and the tales of a resurrected body, relatively intact except for various wounds, would have to be made-up. There must be some sort of plausible source or time line for such inventions, terminating in their incorporation into the various gospel stories. Do you know of anyone who’s made a serious focused scholarly study along these lines: how do we get from a rotting corpse tossed into a mass grave or garbage dump, to the resurrection myths that became canonical?
I think that’s what I tried to deal wiht in my book How Jesus Became God.
Terry is truly a master of interviewing. Firstly, because she gets thoroughly grounded in the relevant material; secondly, because she really *listens* to the person she’s talking to; and thirdly, because she knows when and when not to interrupt. She does her usual fine job here.
And so do you, Bart. You are eminently clear and on point throughout. I’ve rarely heard an author do better. Bravo.
You say in the interview that the conversion of constantine was absolutely everything to the success of christianity.
But i think you’ve changed your mind on that now, that the christian take over of the empire was inevitable?
Yup.
Because Paul lied about that, then the “Church” tried Paul and found him a liar (2 Tim. 4:16), then after Paul was tried, and abandoned – after his death, Marcion resurrected the writings of Paul to fight against the “gospel” taught by Joshua 2 (Jesus). Then Rome, about the time Marcion was being defeated, added Paul, three other gospels, and the book of Hebrews to pretend a “new testament” to replace the “old testament” – and worked at altering the Hebrew Scripture in key locations to foster undiscovery of their lies against Elohim and all mankind. Christians are amongst the most duped on the face of the planet – and Bart is leader of the offshoot of lies because he fails to go back to the beginning to see what the real truth is. onediscipletoanother.org Inquire of the olden days, from the Creation through the giving of the Covenant of Noah (which defies Judaism “Kosher Laws”), and see the original unaltered “Covenant Conditions” in “The Valediction of Moses”. Jews lied to us. We lied about them. Hardly anyone dares to find the truth of God. onediscipletoanother.org
If, If, if – Bart has no idea what would have become of Christianity if it were not for Paul. If Jesus was right – all the signs are pointing the way of the Hebrew Matthew as given.
Dr. Ehrman, you talk about Nazareth as a small village or hamlet. Jesus was called the “Nazarene” (synonymous with zealot) maybe not because of where he was from, but because of his sect affiliation. Jesus was one of the Nazarenes (Aramaic for “Keepers”), rather than a Sadducee or Pharisee. And maybe he wasn’t just a Nazarene, but the leader of them as he was always called “THE Nazarene”. For me, the reason this line of thinking seems to make more sense is that historically a hamlet called Nazareth is not mentioned at all in the Hebrew Bible, especially missing from the Book of Joshua. The Talmud names 63 Galilean towns except Nazareth. Paul speaks nothing of Nazareth. No ancient historian or geographer mentions it. Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee and it’s 45 cities and villages, but not the one that Jesus came from. Why not? Does it make sense that such a small hamlet would have a synagogue? As poor as they were? How did they have Holy scrolls and who read them if they were illiterate farmers? It doesn’t make sense.
I ran over my word limit…and had to cut short much more…your thoughts please
Thanks
David
I don’t think Nazarene means zealot. Are you thinking of Nazirite? They are unrelated words, though in English they look like they should have similar etymologies. And no, I don’t think Nazareth would have had a synagogue building; a “synagogue” in most smaller places just meant a place where at least ten Jewish men (males) gathered for worship.
I agree, I wasn’t trying to say that “Nazarene” meant zealot, but the correlation of being one (Essene offshoot) as zealots. The expression “Jesus of Nazareth” is actually a bad translation of the Greek; more accurately it should be “Jesus the Nazarene”, unrelated to the hamlet. And we know that Nazarene is an off-shoot, or sect of the Essenes. Paul never mentions them, but is accused of being one in Acts 24:5. It is interesting that the writer of Matthew attempts to correlate Jesus the Nazarene to the town of Nazareth by misquoting scripture in Mat 2:23; in Judges, Numbers and Amos, they all reference a Nazirite, not a person being from a town, village or hamlet. Did the re-writer of Mark, sometime between 140-150 BCE, slip in Jesus being from Nazareth in Mk 1:9, on purpose? Matthew, writing the same part of the story in Mt 3:13 doesn’t seem to mention that fact? It’s all very suspect. The motive was make it look like Jesus was from Nazareth to fit their narrative.
The Nazarene sect were zealots and we know Jesus died as a zealot. I even believe Jesus was truly the King of Israel, son of Judah Ben Hezekiah
Jesus is called “Jesus the Nazarene” six times in Mark and LUke; and “Jesus the Nazorite” sevven times in the four Gospels; he is called “Jesus from Nazareth” three times, once each in Mark, John, and Acts. I’m not aware of the Nazarenes being an offshoot of the Essenes or that there was a correlation of Nazarene and zealots.
Hi Dr. Ehrman, I was wondering if you had any further responses to the book that was published in response to When Jesus Became God, “When God Became Jesus”?
I looked through it because I wanted to understand what the traditionalist criticism of your arguments would be based on, and some of it sounded plausible. For example, suggesting that Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Jewish council whose duty it was to bury the bodies of condemned criminals, that crucifixion victims were in fact buried (per Yochanan and the more recently discovered burial in Celtic Britain afaik), and that there was a strong Jewish sentiment against leaving crucified bodies hanging overnight, so Pilate (whether or not he was a “good man”) would at least not want to provoke a rebellion by going against those mores. However, it’s also true that I simply don’t have the background to know whether these are GOOD arguments, as I’m a hobbyist from a conservative religious background now trying to question my assumptions, but without very much time to devote to in-depth study.
Are there past articles in your blog that address these as well?
Intersting you should ask. One of my posts showing up soon is a repeat of an old post on just that topic!
Dr Ehrman, I know you have probably done a great deal of study on The Revelation and I don’t want to start one here, but I would like to beg a different viewpoint that maybe you have or have not considered. I have done quite a few studies on the book and read a few authors as well and until I came across this young man’s study, I never really felt like I understood The Revelation correctly. I think he brings it to a point in which I find attractive, and that is in reference to audience relevance. I feel that so many people who have studied and written about it the book, disregard the fact that it was written to a specific audience at a very unique and desperate time. His name is Adam Maarshalk and here is a link: https://adammaarschalk.com/2017/01/02/the-beast-of-revelation-was-zealot-led-israel-introduction-and-outline/. Like you, I used to subscribe to the idea that Rome was the Beast and the past leaders of Rome were the kings (or horns), but I disagree 100% now. Please take a look at his work; I think you will find it very thorough and convincing. And here: https://adammaarschalk.com/2017/01/14/daniel-7-the-fourth-beast-10-horns-three-horns-and-a-little-horn/
Reference to your book
Thanks. As you probably know, this is the topic of the book I just finished writing. I haven’t read Maarshalk, but unless he show that a zealot-led-Israel ruled the nations of earth and was fabulously wealthy virtually beyond comprehension and controlled the imperical economy and was the great city that is seated on seven hills, then I doubt if he’s gonna convince too many people. But as I said, I haven’t read it. Thanks for letting me know about it.
I didn’t know this was the topic of your latest book! I look forward to reading it.
The “earth” discussed in Revelation is “Israel/First Century Palestine”; not the entire earth. The “nations” are the scattered tribes of Israel. See Adam’s work here: https://adammaarschalk.com/2010/02/19/the-earth-as-a-common-reference-to-israel-in-revelation-part-1/
I’m not sure what Rev reference you’re using for the wealthy, but this is a possible answer: https://adammaarschalk.com/2016/11/02/josephus-and-the-book-of-revelation-nine-case-studies/
See Case Study #2
Jerusalem was known as a City on Seven Hills. See: https://www.biblestudy.org/maps/map-of-jerusalem-and-its-seven-hills.html.
Revelation 16:11 says that “pains” and “sores” would come upon the people who lived in the beast’s kingdom, and implies that further judgment would come upon this kingdom for refusing to repent. During the Jewish-Roman War did people throughout the Roman Empire experience “pains” and “sores,” or did this happen to the people of Israel?
Revelation 19:20 – If the Roman Empire was the beast of Revelation, how was this empire captured, slain, destroyed, burned, and cast into the lake of fire? Rome actually came out of the Jewish-Roman War (AD 66 -73) stronger than ever. History tells us that Rome was stronger in the second century AD than it was in the first century AD.
Lastly, check here: https://adammaarschalk.com/2017/01/02/the-beast-of-revelation-was-zealot-led-israel-introduction-and-outline/ …scroll down to the summary points.
I think you’ll need to read my book tosee!
Dr. Ehrman,
What do you make of historian Steven Davies argument in “Jesus the Healer” (a book favorably reviewed by Elaine Pagels and John D. Crossan) that the initial appeal of Christianity was the experience of spirit possession, not teachings or the story of Jesus’s resurrection?
“Christianity rose and spread, ” Davies argues, “because of an experience that was highly desirable, that was transmissible from one person to other people, and that was effective as a community-creating focal element, and that provided free medical care. Scholars of the New Testament and of Christian origins must become much more knowledgeable about the anthropology of spirit-possession in societies and more understanding of the role of altered states of consciousness in religious formation.”
I don’t think there’s any solid evidence for it. Paul says nothing about it that way, either does Acts; or any of the later accounts of conversions. I don’t think “spirit conversions” would explain why the followers of Jesus came to think he was the messiah after his death, and that’s what Christainity early on was, a commitment to a cruified messiah.
Prof Ehrman,
In one of your recent lectures, you recommended a Jewish Study Bible. Please, can you assist with the names of the writer (s) to help narrow down the search? Thank you.
It’s the one by Adele Berlin and Marc Brettler, here: https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Study-Bible-Second/dp/0199978468/ref=sr_1_1?crid=SJD7OH1XNJ9N&keywords=The+Jewish+Study+Bible&qid=1644683977&sprefix=the+jewish+study+bible%2Caps%2C112&sr=8-1
Many many thanks Prof Ehrman