Loading...The responses to How Jesus Became God are starting to appear, and I must say, I find the harshest ones bordering on the incredible. Do people think that it is acceptable to attack a book that they haven’t read – or at least haven’t had the courtesy to try to understand?
Some of the reviewers are known entities, such as the Very Rev. Robert Barron, a Roman Catholic evangelist and commentator who has a wide following. His full response is available at http://wordonfire.org/Written-Word/articles-commentaries/April-2014/Why-Jesus-is-God–A-Response-to-Bart-Ehrman.aspx I find it very disappointing. Here is his opening gambit:
****************************************
“In this most recent tome, Ehrman lays out what is actually a very old thesis, going back at least to the 18th century and repeated ad nauseam in skeptical circles ever since, namely, that Jesus was a simple itinerant preacher who never claimed to be divine and whose “resurrection” was in fact an invention of his disciples who experienced hallucinations of their master after his death. Of course Ehrman, like so many of his skeptical colleagues across the centuries, breathlessly presents this thesis as though he has made a brilliant discovery. But basically, it’s the same old story. When I was a teenager, I read British Biblical scholar Hugh Schonfield’s Passover Plot, which lays out the same narrative, and just a few months ago, I read Reza Aslan’s Zealot, which pursues a very similar line, and I’m sure next Christmas or Easter I will read still another iteration of the theory.”
******************************************
So I have to ask in all seriousness: has the Very Reverend Robert Barron actually read my book?
Where to start? How about with the “invention” of the resurrection of Jesus’ disciples based on their hallucinations? Maybe Barron was so caught up in the idea that I am (in his view) a reincarnation of 18th century skeptics that he didn’t bother to look very closely. I took great care in my book precisely not to say what he accuses me of saying. Nowhere do I say that Jesus’ resurrection was invented by his hallucinating disciples. In fact I spent considerable length arguing that the visions of Jesus would be seen by his modern-day followers as appearances of Jesus – that is, as veridical visions – and by non-believers as non-veridical hallucinations. But I pointedly did not take a stand on the issue in the book. My view is that the disciples saw visions, and each of us can decide whether they really saw Jesus or simply thought they did. In other words, Barron is attacking a straw man. (I also do not take a stand on the central theological question of whether Jesus really was God or not.)
Moreover, it is offensive to say that I “breathlessly present this thesis” as though I “had made a brilliant discovery.” This is mockery, not a serious evaluation. I have tried to present a sober historical analysis. It is based on many years of research. If I’m breathless, it’s only because of the hard work and many long hours I put into doing the work. If he imagines that I’m pretending that everything in my book is my new, spectacular, first-time ever made discovery – why doesn’t he cite some passages where I say that or even suggest it? If he had read my book he would see that I cite and mention previous scholars at virtually all the key points. But, of course, it is easier to disparage someone for their “breathless” presentation than it is to engage with them.
OK, so I’m a bit testy. But what really has sent me over the edge is his claim that my view is simply a re-hashing of Hugh Schonfield’s Passover Plot. Is he SERIOUS? Maybe he forgot what the thesis of the Passover Plot is. Or maybe he doesn’t care, but simply wants to tarnish me by association with an absurd thesis that someone else advanced, which in fact has nothing to do with mine.
For those of you who don’t know, The Passover Plot maintained that Jesus believed he was to be the messiah, and he “knew” that to be the messiah he had to die and be raised again. And so he planned for that to happen. He arranged to have himself drugged on the cross so that his vital signs would slow down and he would go into a coma, appearing to be dead. He worked it out with a couple of his followers then to retrieve him from the tomb so that he could revive, appear to others, and convince them then that he had been resurrected. Unfortunately he was not counting on a Roman soldier piercing his heart with a spear, and it was this injury that unfortunately killed him. He did revive, but only long enough to escape the tomb, which his disciples later found empty and came to argue then that he had left as the lord of heaven. Jesus himself died very soon after his failed plot.
What does this reconstruction of events have to do with the historical sketch that I give in How Jesus Became God? Almost precisely NOTHING. (And if he thinks I’m regurgitating anything like the thesis of Reza Aslan, he might do well to consider the sustained critique of Zealot found in multiple posts devoted to the subject here on this blog.)
I really don’t mind having serious criticism leveled against my book, or serious academic engagement over scholarly reconstructions of what happened in the life of Jesus or in its aftermath in the birth of Christianity. But I simply cannot stand cheap shots condescendingly delivered, by people – popular authors or not – who do not want to interact with historical data and serious interpretations, but instead want to take potshots to make the “faithful” think that all is well with the world and that their preconceived notions about religion cannot be shaken by historical inquiry. My view is that my book should have ZERO impact on intelligent, informed, Christian belief. (And I have evidence: I have intelligent Christian friends who are scholars of early Christianity who agree with almost all of my analysis.) If The Very Reverend Robert Barron does find my book threatening, it is either because he has not read it closely enough or because he holds to fundamentalist views that have somehow or other managed to work their way into the hearts and minds of the Catholic clergy. Or both.
I will be dealing with some of the other things he says in later posts.
Professor Ehrman, you can not seriously be surprised by the Very Reverend Robert Barron’s response. Do you remember your talk at Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA where you got to sit in a room with the other speaker while school officials spoke to the students? They were doing what the Very Reverend RB is doing here. They and he are prepping their readers/listeners with a twisted and unfair description of your points and why they are all wrong so that when you speak or write many people are reading/listening with the orthodox answers already pre-set in their minds.
–
The Very Reverend is not trying to engage your book with serious scholarship. He is trying to get to believers before they read your book so they can not read your book impartially and fairly. There are very many orthodox writers and speakers who are doing the same at this very moment. I grew up in Lynchburg a few blocks from the Thomas Road Baptist Church so I claim expertise in this area.
Dr Ehrman: Baron is a catholic fundamentalist; something that has cropped up in Catholicism in the past 30 or 40 years. I have read his drivel; he did not read your book. I thought your book was well researched and well written. I had no problem understanding it..
Well, obviously, as the Very Rev points out, you didn’t take into account “a different semiotic system”.
I think Mr. Barron sees him self as Very RIGHT Reverend. lol. Why be bothered with any facts when you can just diss someone.
I agree with you, Bart. “Breathlessly”, “brilliant”. This is mockery. Then again, I’d mock Bill O’Reilly for his fantasies of Jesus if anyone cared what I say. I mock those who aren’t interested in evidence. Others mock those who are, even a little. There aren’t just two ways to see it, but anyone can divide those ways into “my way” or my church’s way and everything else. We are dualists by nature.
I’m in the middle of How Jesus became God right now and I’m enjoying it very much.I’m not sure why you are surprised by the reactions of these people.They don’t agree with anything you have to say whether it’s the dating of the gospels,or who wrote them,or that the sky is blue.They don’t want to hear anything you have to say because you are doing Satan’s work by picking apart everything they hold dear.The more the common folks learn the less likely they are to return to church and that means less money rolling in.Keep up the good work you must be doing something right.
I think anyone who understands objectivity or the burden of proof can see right through this critique. Also, I think the value of Bart Ehrman isn’t that he so brilliantly came up with everything on his own (which he doesn’t believe himself) but rather that he brilliantly makes historical method, data, and conclusions accessible to laymen, successfully (in my opinion) giving us the tools to make up our own mind in an educated way.
I think it’s the nature of the times. There aren’t many who can, or even want to, put in the time to understand historical data and rationally work out their positions. We live in an emotional, sound-bite society which is encouraged by every huckster trying to build a base, from politicians to lobbyists to telemarketers to talk show hosts. And after all, he is playing to his base.
Robert Barron produced a widely acclaimed and, from my viewing, a well informed TV series on Catholicism. I am surprised he made so many cheap and ignorant comments on your book and your views in general. No matter how many times you repeat over the years that your scholarship had nothing to do with your becoming an agnostic, Christian apologists keep repeating the misinformation. I have come to expect evangelical apologists ranting about (incorrectly) that Ehrman on a mission to undermine fundamental Christian beliefs; I am surprised a Catholic theologian doing the same. In declaring the thesis that Jesus never considered himself divine “is so much nonsense”, Barron should pay attention to the Catholic biblical scholar, Raymond Brown’s chiding of “nonscholarly conservatism” in “An Introduction to New Testament Christology”, and Brown’s verdict on Jesus’ own christology: “we come now to the most difficult area for the discernment of Jesus’ own christology – difficult because of the lack of evidence”. Contrast Brown with Barron’s confident claim: “affirmations of divinity on the lips of Jesus himself positively abound in the Synoptics.”
Perhaps Catholic apologists are not as dogmatic in defending the inerrancy of the Bible as evangelical apologists. However, when it comes to defending Patristic doctrines such as divinity of Jesus, Catholic apologists are as dogmatic, thereby conflating the Church’s teaching on Jesus’ divinity with what can be discerned about the historical Jesus’ own views.
The general negative response has not really given an alternative explanation of how jesus became god or how that idea developed especially in the earliest phase. They just focus on you as a person or dispute points here and there–poinys that don’t break or make the central argument you make. They never really address the questions themselves. it seems like they just want to reassure the faithful.
Sorry to read the misrepresentation… I’ve seen it directed at you before. Snarky comments by a blogger referring to the debate with Craig Evans were falsely posted as your words by a fundamentalist who refused to correct his post when his error was pointed out. No one deserves to be intentionally misrepresented. When done, it says a great deal about the character of the doer.
As for now, I have read both your book and the “response book” made by the others scholars. I must say that they hardly touched the main thesis of your book, avoid the mayor motif that you presented and tried to present an “alternative view” more than a “response”. I got mad when I saw clearly that at some points they were taking quotes from your book out of context, sometimes they used irreverent “ad hominem” language and even sometimes they tried to use “theology” instead of “history” to persuade their readers. Do you plan in the near future to respond “here and there” to some points or concerns raised by that book? It should be interesting hear responses back and forth after all this ruckus settle down!
Your time is worth way more than this Doctor Ehrman.
“What does this reconstruction of events have to do with the historical sketch that I give in How Jesus Became God? Almost precisely NOTHING. (And if he thinks I’m regurgitating anything like the thesis of Reza Aslan, he might do well to consider the sustained critique of Zealot found in multiple posts devoted to the subject here on this blog.)”
It’s a pretty weak review, which is a pity because he is usually one of the Christian apologists who manages to actually be reasonable quite a bit of the time. But I think what he was saying re Schofield and Aslan is that your book is another book that claims to have discovered something new (which is wrong) that debunks central tenets of Christianity (which is sort of true). Not that you promulgate the same theses found in those other two books (which would be impossible, since they are nothing like each other). Comparing you to a crackpot like Schofield and an amateur like Aslan is still a weak slur, he doesn’t seem to be actually saying you’re presenting the same ideas.
Prof Ehrman
You write:
“My view is that my book should have ZERO impact on intelligent, informed, Christian belief. (And I have evidence: I have intelligent Christian friends who are scholars of early Christianity who agree with almost all of my analysis.)”
I have to confess I really don’t understand this at all. I realize you’re not a believer so perhaps not the one to address this to. Nevertheless…
How can something be true theologically if it’s not true historically? If Jesus didn’t believe he was divine then how can his followers be correct in believing him to be? Can someone be divine without knowing it? If Jesus thought the Kingdom of God was approaching and his trial and crucifixion was an unforeseen disaster then how can this result in anything but a devaluation of his belief?
As Paul said, if there is no resurrection, if it was just visions or hallucinations, then what’s the point? And doesn’t Paul’s interpretation of Jesus in Romans hinge on the belief that Adam was a real historical human being? If there was no “first Adam” is there a need for a second? Most Christians in most times and most places seem to have thought they were talking about reality and not simply imaginative constructs. How do theologians know they’re actually saying anything about reality if theology is divorced from history?
Prof Ehrman, I realize it’s not your intention to undermine anyone’s faith. But I don’t see how placing the historical Jesus in his own time and place does anything but alienate us from him.
thanks
ps I’m enjoying your book immensely. Once again you’re making me look at something I’ve been reading about my whole life in a new way. And I really like the jacket. Nice graphic. It would make a fine poster.
I would turn the question back on you. Why is history the major criterion for what is true? Can’t novels, films, and works of art be “true”? Or is truth restricted to events that transpired in the past?
Wouldn’t treating Christianity as a “work of art” be hopeless anachronism? In all your books you rightly insist we should understand Jesus and Paul and the early followers of Jesus on their own terms. They didn’t think this way. I think we should accept, or in my case reject, Jesus and Paul and the founders of Christianity on their own terms.
I’m just saying there is a different between approaching Christianity historically and theologically.
I think I tend to agree with SJB on this. Yes, novels, films and works of art could be “true” but we’re talking about theology, a theology that makes claims on history. It’s hard to see how there can be no impact on that theology if the assumed facts or understanding of it’s history change.
Maybe I look at it like that because of my fundamentalist background. I do know some folks who look at the bible more as collected wisdom than a literal discussion of events. For them, Jesus’ view of his own divinity wouldn’t matter all that much. For others though, Jesus’ divinity is the essence of their faith and woe to those who challenge it. Not being a trinitarian even in my believing days, I’ve been on the receiving end of that more than once.
Yes, fundamentalists and former-fundamentalists usually see it this way. But very few really good theologians do!
Wow… I very much enjoyed your answer.
I don’t think you really answered SJB. He or she wrote: “How can something be true theologically if it’s not true historically? If Jesus didn’t believe he was divine then how can his followers be correct in believing him to be? Can someone be divine without knowing it?”
Personally, I think that when you indicated in your book that – given the available evidence – it didn’t seem that Jesus considered himself anything more than the Messiah, you should have spelled out the possibility that even if that really was the case, he might have been “God” without knowing it – might have chosen, before incarnating as a human, to suspend his knowledge of his own divinity during that incarnation.
I’m sure that for many Christians, it *is* crucial to their faith that Jesus was truly, literally, “God,” and that he was truly resurrected. You readily acknowledge that you can’t – and aren’t trying to – disprove it, nor can any historian disprove it.
Yes, I definitely meant to imply that — which is why I said that I don’t take a stand on whether Jesus really *was* God, only on how Christians came to *call* him God and what they meant by that.
Or is truth restricted to events that transpired in the past?
Not according to “constructivist theory”. See “Truth” Wiki
I think some of what is in the bible is historically true. But I do not see why all of it must be true in a literal historic sense.
For me it is enough if it (along with the church) tells me what I need to know.
If I go to heaven and God tells me Moses (or whoever the author of Leviticus was) got it wrong when he said rabbits chew the cud, I am not going to be upset. Obviously if God says Jesus was wrong about his command – that’s a different story.
Many of the discrepancies mentioned by Professor Ehrman seemed shocking at first. But they really haven’t shaken my faith. On the whole I guess expected there to be many more issues with books as ancient as the old testament. I am really fairly surprised how consistent they are.
We can argue about whether the ending of Mark is important or not important. But the facts are the facts. Professor Ehrman can say the gospels are “absolutely filled with discrepancies” I can look at the same exact discrepancies and think that they are relatively few in number. In the end its like arguing whether a mile is a long distance or a short distance. A mile is a mile. Spin it as you want.
The difference comes from what our expectations were to begin with. He started studying the bible with an evangelical background. I started with a Catholic background. The bible was and, of course, still is important to my faith. But it being inerrant is not what the Catholic faith is all about. The bible is not the begin all and end all. Christ did not come to write his book.
The engaging discussions you have had with Gathercole, on Trinities.org, and with Terry Gross all show what a serious look at the evidence is about, including when there are differences of opinion with others who are scholars. Snarky and belittling attacks do nothing to further the views of those who engage in them. In fact, it defeats their purposes, especially when it is obvious from their comments that they have not read your book.
His treatment of Hume in that article was almost as bad as his response to your book.
I think he was clearly too hasty in his response.
Bart.
I’ve noticed this charge cropping up quite a bit in articles written by conservative or evangelical Christians, something along the lines of, “Ehrman is rehashing old arguments and trying to pass them off as his own”.
I can say, as someone who has read several of your books and watched/ listened to countless lectures, interviews, and documentaries you have done, that you always make the point that the great majority of the opinions you hold are shared by a majority of NT scholars, and that many of these opinions were formed by your study of the work of scholars, going back nearly 200 years! I can only assume that your detractors aren’t familiar with your work, or are being snide.
In the piece you linked, the writer says:
“But equally clear statements of divinity are on clear display in the Synoptics, provided we know how to decipher a different semiotic system.”
I think it’s safe to assume from that line alone that he is not on firm ground!
That’s pretty pathetic.
I’d never heard of the guy, but if you check out his wiki bio, it says that “He is a frequent commentator on faith and culture for The Chicago Tribune, NBC Nightly News, Fox News Channel…”
His misreading of your book speaks extremely poorly of him. Maybe that is a part of how he cultivates his niche (conservative evangelical) audience.
Still, he should not be allowed to get away with misrepresenting your work.
“who do not want to interact with historical data and serious interpretations, but instead want to take potshots to make the “faithful” think that all is well with the world and that their preconceived notions about religion cannot be shaken by historical inquiry.” Yep. In a nutshell.
Dr. E, people who feel compelled to be addressed as “Very Reverend” or as “Father” when they have no children clearly have some identity and esteem issues and are not worth worrying about or taking seriously. Take comfort in all those who have found your work educational, liberating and even inspiring.
Due to my limited vocabulary, I had to google an expression of discontent and it goes like this: ugh!
!!
I’m not surprised at this malarkey coming from a Catholic source!
I had, for some reason, thought of *The Passover Plot* recently – couldn’t recall whether it was a novel, or this “plot to be taken down from the cross alive” was actually proposed by someone as a serious theory. I hadn’t gotten around to looking it up. I guess it *was* proposed as a serious theory! Is the author really qualified as a “Biblical scholar,” as Barron says?
Of course, Barron’s equating your work with nonsense like that is appalling.
Yes….the remarks of the Rev Barron are ridiculous but expected considering who he’s trying to cater to.
I used to get really upset at Church on Sundays when I would hear things like “now we know that the
first five books of the bible were written by Moses” or when our pastor would discuss revelations
with only the futuristic model in mind. I’ve heard 5 sermons last year that referenced the women caught
in adultery. I don’t know how many times I wanted to stand up and say “please do some research would
you”. The Rev Barron is worse and almost deceitful in that he’s making his readers think he’s making
an intelligent commentary on your book after reading it but yet never made the attempt.
I can’t imagine what it’s like to receive a review like Barron’s on a work that has been well researched and has been eight years in the making. I have never written a book so I don’t really know the depth of frustration that such a review brings to an author. Barron’s review seems to be more of an opportunity to push orthodox apologetics rather than an interaction with the book’s contents in a scholarly manner. I think there are knowledgeable readers who can readily discern a review that has been generated out of the anal sphincter.
This might be a place to comment on the Jefferson doctrine regarding having a problem with one’s neighbors. Unless a neighbors beliefs brought personal harm to Jefferson, he took no issue.
As an unbeliever, I think it is grossly unfair for society to think less of me than a rapist so my reality is that religion is doing me harm and I take issue with it.
As well, the believer fears that my unbelief will thwart God’s blessings on society and maybe even force his wrath and takes issue with unbelief.
I had already read Rev. Barron’s comments prior to reading your post. At the time I read his comments, I was disturbed by his condescending, nasty tone which seemed unbecoming of a priest. Despite this, I thought he made a reasonable point that Jesus forgiving sins in Mark can be viewed as some evidence that Jesus was considered to be God in Mark since only God can forgive sins. If I have not gotten confused about what was said in which interview/debate, Dr.Gathercole made the same point in his debate with you and you addressed this issue in that debate. Rev. Barron, however, then contends that such evidence, that Jesus was considered to be God, can be found throughout the synoptic Gospels, but he does not adequately support this contention. I look forward to your other comments.
Yes, I agree that Mark portrays Jesus as divine. The question is whether Jesus saw himself that way, and there I think the answer is definitely no.