On September 18th, 2015 I had a debate with Justin Bass on the question “Did the Historical Jesus Really Claim to Be God?” As you might imagine, I argued that the answer is “Decidedly No.” He argued “Decidedly Yes.” The debate was held at the Collin College Preston Ridge Conference Center in Frisco, TX. The event was hosted by “1042 Church” http://www.1042church.com where Justin Bass is the lead pastor.
Most of the audience came from members of Justin’s congregation and friends they brought. It was a very kind and receptive crowd for most of the debate. During the debate I had mixed feelings about it. I’m never quite sure if this kind of thing is worth it, since it seems that there is scarcely any chance of getting anyone to think seriously about changing whatever views they already have. But I keep telling myself that if I can simply get a couple of people to think more deeply about an issue, see the other side, and possibly realize that their views are deeply problematic, I’ve done a good thing. I’d be happy to know your opinion about the matter.
Pre-debate Post: https://ehrmanblog.org/live-stream-the-debate-tonight/
Please adjust gear icon for high-definition.
Just a quick comment that I really enjoyed the debate. Also, just checked Youtube and the views are at 8661 on this debate. I am sure that you realize this but the “audience” is far larger than those that attended.
Dear Prof Ehrman,
There are people allover the globe who are following up on your work because they certainly DO believe that your efforts and research matter! So when you say: ” I’m never quite sure if this kind of thing is worth it”, please rest assured that their eagerness to learn more from you is not fading away; having you produce such intellectual debates to encourage the other side in engaging in the process of Reasoning with the facts you are presenting to them is quite an invaluable opportunity that is nowhere else to find outside the scope of your endeavors Sir. You are adding a unique challenging perspective that is literally bringing people from all backgrounds (mainly Christianity and Islam) together in an attempt to be truly faithful to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I’ll will patch this comment later on with more thoughts on the reaction of your peer during the debate, I will re-watch it soon.
You are so generous with your time, of which I guess you have only the standard twenty four hours a day the rest of us share. You should feel free to be set limits on these debates to those in which you are most interested or cover new material. I have watched many hours of debates and I think that format is not particularly useful. I would much prefer to have conversations between participants In which exchanges are more immediate and points can be debated without the restrictions imposed by the “debate” format.
I think you are basically saying that things are not as comfortable as the inerrantists would have us believe. And that is a good thing to point out. A great deal of academic work, sadly, in every field — leaving aside honorable exceptions such as yourself and others — is a kind of propaganda in disguise.
Well, since you asked, lol,….
I do believe, Bart, that you did a good thing in debating Bass. I believe that you did a good thing whether or not you got “a couple of people to think more deeply about an issue, see the other side, and possibly realize that their views are deeply problematic….” At Bass’s invitation and at his expense you witnessed to the truth before his congregation (as well as to a few of us reprobates, lol, who infiltrated). In return for your troubles, he paid you a substantial fee which you then donated to your fine charities. How could this not be a good thing?
Now, whether or not it was worth it though, that’s another question. If you enjoyed doing it, I’d say it was. If you didn’t, probably not. And if, as you report, you found yourself during the debate having *mixed* feelings, well heck, Bart, it sounds to me then like it’s time to raise your fee!
Just a thought. 🙂
I wonder if there are worthier opponents who would at least stick to the debate topic. But then if they did that, they would lose in such a glaringly pathetic way, failing Jesus among all those Christians in the audience.
Dr Ehrman I too was a deeply orthodox Christian.After reading the Bible over 15 times I too started to see discrepancies Only thru your books did I finally had too change my belief systems Thanks you’re an inspiration.Bob
I think its important that you identify your goal –
Do you want to convert Christians?
Do you want to educate Christians? Everyone?
Are you doing these debates to raise money for your charity?
Do you debate because its fun for you?
A combination, I’m sure, but how do they rank?
These debates, I feel, were best summed by Dr. Schochet (who was debating Dr. Michael Brown on Jesus being the messiah): they are a complete waste of time since neither side is going to change. I also find it amusing that when I see these debates on an atheist/agnostic/etc… channel “Bart Ehrman destroys…” and when the same video is on a Christian channel “Bart Ehrman WAS destroyed…” (haha!)
I personally enjoy your lectures and the “fireside chats” (when several scholars sit down and share their opinions). At any rate, even if you stop debating please don’t give up on sharing your knowledge with the world!
I’m pretty clear on my objectives. It is NOT to convert people (or deconvert them!). But it is to get people to THINK and be more reasonable in their beliefs. And to raise money for charity. Without either one, I simply wouldn’t do them. Life’s too short….
It seems to me then that participating in these debates serve your purpose as you are
-raising awareness to an interested audience
-raising money for charity
(Good on you for doing both btw)
Therefore, I believe you should continue doing them even though “the deck will always be stacked against you.”
This was another really interesting debate, although my all time favorite is the one with Dan Wallace on your home turf. The detailed information about different perspectives on the meaning of the “original text” and the issues related to 2 Corinthians was really interesting, and something Wallace never adequately dealt with. An observation I have on the debate with Bass is that seemed to fixate on the idea that the reason you rejected Jesus as having self-identified as God is that Jesus never came out and said the specific statement “I am God” (or the Greek equivalent thereof). He seemed to have missed that you repeated listed statements from John as being equivalent claims to divinity: Before Abraham was, I am; the Father and I are one; etc. He seemed to have a hard time getting your position that the Son of Man sayings in the synoptics are not equivalent to the sayings in John, thereby leading to the paradox, if Jesus went around claiming to be God, why did the synoptic authors not quote this? I found your position quite clear and compelling. One of the really interesting parts of the debate was on the topic of modalism. My impression is that your disagreement on the issue hinges on whether the name Yaweh refers only to God the Father, or could refer to God as a Trinity. Is there any reason to think the latter is possible for early Christians?
Yes, some people think Yahweh refers to the triune God. I’ve never seen it that way, since in the Hebrew Bible Yahweh is seen addressing another divine being (or more). E.g. Ps. 110: Yahweh says to “my Lord” “you are my son….”
The problem Justin faces here is that it is hard to know much about a man when the sources are anonymous and don’t tell us how they got their information, let alone know whether he claimed to be God.
It was hard to watch the whole thing because you were pulverizing him so bad. It looked like an leisurely intellectual walk in the park with the controls set on cruise. Obi-Wan Kenobi schooling young Luke. I did eventually finish it, I guess it was like not being able to look away from a traffic accident. I hate to ask a question that may be overly asked of you and a bore to hear, but do you think the Ehrman / Price debate will ever happen ? I watched the White / Price debate and really enjoyed it. Price seems like he would be a good spirited, fun and a intellectually worthy opponent for you. I personally dig all your talks / debates and have watched most more then once and turned others on to them that never heard of you before. I think you just need to mix it up a bit with those you debate. Just my 2 cents. As always, thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Correction. The sentence where I said, I think you just need to mix it up with those you debate was ill formed. I meant mix it up with those you ” take on to debate.” I hope that makes better sense. Is there a edit option for posts ?
I’m afraid you need to edit your own posts before you post them!!
I watched the debate. Excellent academic approach to the topic as usual. Seemed to be more preaching than reasoning on the other side. Am curious to read some of your research on memory that you spoke about; is there a book or place to find this? Am also wondering whatever happened to this so called 1st century manuscript of Mark that had some hype around it, was that a bluff? Love your work and am hoping to be a student some day if I can afford the class.
My book on memory will be out in March! First-century Mark is still waiting to see the light of published day….
Hello Bart
I have seen you in many lectures and debates stating that there is contradiction on jesus death . John’s account says that Jesus died before the Passover meal while Mark’s account places Jesus’ death after the Passover meal. recently I came cross blog claiming that there is no contradiction when we compare Numbers 28 with Exodus 12. are you aware of this argument and how will you refute it
thanks
The problem does not involve a contradiction with Numbers 28 and Exodus 12. It’s much simpler than that. Did Jesus die the afternoon before the Passover meal was eaten (as in John) or the morning after it was eaten (Mark)?
Dr. Ehrman,
I live a few miles from Collin College, and would have attended the debate if I had known about it! I attend Community Unitarian Universalist Church, also a few miles from the college. There are several other Ehrman fans there who would also have attended to support you.
I am a new subscriber to your blog, though I have been a reader for several years.
Thanks for all you do to spread truth and encourage thought instead of belief.
Dr. Ehrman, I wish you would debate more mythicists. Mythicism has become the scourge of the atheist community. Indeed, it has gotten so that bad that I have even been accused of being a crypto-believer and an apologist shill by other atheists simply because I think that Jesus the man actually existed! In some online atheists groups a mythicist belief is almost a litmus test for acceptance. I don’t believe this is simply an innocent misconception because it makes us normally reasonable skeptics look like kooky conspiracy theorists, therefore, ultimately hurting the secular cause. I blame, in particular, that clown Richard Carrier for much of this pernicous nonsense, and I wish sensible non-believing scholars such as yourself would expose this misconception before it does irreparable intellectual harm. At the very least, I wish you would do Seth Andrews’ The Thinking Atheist podcast, because his audience often complains that he too often gives a voice to mythicists such as Carrier and Robert Price without counter argument, but when confronted about it Andrews says that he has asked you to come on the podcast to rebut but you have refused. 🙁
I’ll be debating Robert Price in the spring. I’ve always resisted! But he’s a good guy and it should be fun.
I wish you would debate Carrier and utterly destroy him. He’s patient zero of the mythicism epidemic.
I’m so looking forward to a Dr. Ehrman vs. Dr. Price debate! Coincidently, I’m watching a William Lane Craig – Robert Price debate right now and it looks like you got your work cut out for you! Dr. Price speaks eloquently and presents a well formulated case – he is a formidable opponent for the Bartman (unlike Justin Bass in this debate)!
Has the date/time/loc been set for this event?
Yes, it will be in Milwaukee on October 21.
Is the date and location for the debate set?
It will be in Milwaukee on Oct. 21.
I have watched many of your youtube debates online and wonder the same thing you ask, but maybe these debates are more helpful to people “online” than they are to such a live audience. Moreover, I have seen your youtube debates referred to many times as being of crucial importance on various websites. Hence, these debates, due to their youtube distribution, may be more helpful to others than what you feel while you are actually debating.
I have just finished reading “Making Sense of the Bible” by Adam Hamilton. Some readers of this website might find this book of interest, I had been looking for some books where the authors understand the basics of historical Biblical criticism and still make reasonable arguments for Christianity, albeit, a moderate, not a fundamentalist, Christianity . This book does just that. As a bonus, the author, like Dr, Ehrman, writes clearly and concisely. I am not advocating Hamilton’s theological position, namely that the Bible, although not perfect, contains all of the information that is necessary for salvation, but it was important for me to understand how a reasonable person can get to such a theological position. My main disagreement with Hamilton is that I think the “inconsistencies” in the Bible, as capably demonstrated by Dr. Ehrman in “Jesus Interrupted,” are more than “occasional” as Hamilton states on page 168 and are substantial enough to raise serious questions about the historical reliability of much that is in the Gospels. Finally, at one point, Hamilton contends that ten of the disciples were put to death for their faith and I don’t think there is any evidence that this happened.
Anyway, I think most fundamentalists need a “bridge,” like Hamilton’s book, before they can fully appreciate
your books and debates..
Hard to fight ignorance and superstition!
Keep doing it. By putting stuff out you are impacting more than you think.
Hi Bart,
I think it is definitely worth it. When I was struggling with my faith, it was precisely these types of debates, along with books, that led me to know what scholars know. Please keep doing them.
These recorded debates posted on Youtube are of value to a far larger audience than those present in the debates. It is plausible very few members of Justin Bass’ congregation will be persuaded to think differently from the debate. But there are many open-minded seekers of truth out there (whoever have ears, let them hear), seeking information online, who would find the substantiative engagement in this sort of debate illuminating, willing to evaluate the evidence and arguments from all sides. Don’t get frustrated with evasiveness and obfuscation of your fundamentalist opponents, instead tailor your answers with details and argumentation of value to seekers out there.
I’m not able to view videos. Would someone be able to briefly summarize what Justin used as evidence that Jesus claimed to be divine?
Excellent! Your debates are always entertaining, but more importantly, thought provoking.
You have a talent as an excellent debater, so I hope you will continue.
I love your style of clarity, connecting to the audience, occasional humor and your depth of knowledge.
Surely more than several in the audience were educated and hopefully accepted your challenge to think for themselves. Change comes slowly, but it has start somewhere.
Great debate. Thanks for sharing.
You and Dr. Bass both referred to historical criteria as including a test of whether something passed the test of dissimilarity. That would be like saying that something is not admissible at trial because it was not a statement against self interest. A statement against self interest is a circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness but the opposite does not apply to a statement that coincides with the author’s self interest. If a person makes a statement that is against his interests there is a logical basis for concluding that he is telling the truth. If a person makes a statement that coincides with his interests, that is not a logical basis for concluding that he is not telling the truth. Unlikely coincidence can suggest fabrication but that is not a threshold inquiry for admissibility and would only be applied in weighing evidence already deemed worthy of consideration. That is far removed from stating something does not pass the test dissimilarity.
Yes, you’re right — the criterion of dissimilarity can be used to show what *did* happen but not what did *not*. If something does not pass the criterion, then the criterion cannot be used to show that it did happen, and one needs some good reasons for thinking that it did. Moreover, if a criterion is clearly something that reflects the bias/beliefs/views of the one passing it along, it is at the least suspicious, though not necessarily spurious.
During these debates, do you ever feel like Paul preaching to an unresponsive group of Jews and gentiles?
Ha! I don’t think most of the listeners at the time would have wanted to liken me to Paul!!
I wasn’t able to hear some of the question/answer session, but I thought it was great. Both of you made valid points at different places. It’s even more fun to watch when you’re irritated. I mean, your debates do have some entertainment value. =D
As far as being worth it, I say yes! Those who are seriously contemplating your argument may not be standing in line to ask a question or have the liberty to be open about their questions. What they don’t think about at the time of the debate may be thought about at a later date. You wouldn’t know that. You may never know! The videos are posted publicly and who knows the impact that has had and will have in the future.
I think you’re brave for facing audiences that may be oppositional to your viewpoint. It’s unbalanced and a tough position to be in I would think. You handle it very well though.
Yeah, I’m afraid I get irritated far too easily….
I don’t know where you find enough patience Bart. You made your points well enough that I’m sure those one or two people will be thinking deeply about this issue.
I spent much of a wet Sunday watching this. Talk about walking into the lion’s den! Anyway, by my score (admittedly I am biased) it was 3-0 to Ehrman United (using a soccer analogy). Your point about why the synoptic gospels, which all agree were compiled earlier than John, make no reference to Jesus claiming divinity was unanswered and, it seems to me, is unanswerable. And, as you said on several occasions, one cannot prove a negative, so many of the objections to your arguments were spurious. I also liked the slight but relevant detour concerning the reliability (or lack thereof) of orally transmitted evidence.
I just hope your courage is rewarded and that one or two of those students start to think for themselves as a result of this debate. However, a combination of peer pressure, childhood indoctrination and wishful-thinking is a powerful adversary, so I won’t hold my breath. Sadly, you might never know if the seed that you have scattered here grows to full maturity.
Christians seem to think that things in the bible were written with them (21st century western civilization) as the target audience. When i would ask them about certain doctrines, i ask them why these things were not mentioned until john or revelation (or whatever other late addition). I ask why jesus left the church in the dark on these doctrines only to be learned decades later. They seem to think “well, we have the complete bible now, thats what matters”. Same thing with them injecting their doctrines retroactively into the OT. If you point out that the actual people that the OT was written to never understood the writings to mean what christians think (for example, the trinity in genesis, or the law being some temporary thing until some other thing ends it etc), they once again display the belief that the OT writings were written with secret meanings that were written with the intention of being deciphered by christians centuries later. It doesnt matter that the authors of the OT nor the recipients of it, nor the writers of the synoptics, nor the first christians, nor the apostles believer X or Y, 2016 christians know X and Y is true evause they have the complete bible AND the revelation to decipher!
Whew! You must have been totally mentally exhausted at the end and probably really needed to go to the restroom. I was impressed at the end that you were still mentally able to address the question about the difference between Jesus being “divine” and Jesus being “God.” Here is my summary of the debate which might be helpful to readers of this website:
Dr. Bass made an opening argument that Paul and early Christians soon considered Jesus to be God and, hence, this is something that Jesus must have taught them. He also contended that Jesus referred to Himself as being the “son of man” and “Lord’ and that these self-references mean that He considered Himself to be “God,”
Dr. Ehrman stated that If Jesus were God surely He would have mentioned this in Matthew, Mark, and Luke not just in John. Further, the statements in John cannot be historically accurate because it would have been impossible for the author of John to accurately repeat what Jesus had said 6 decades earlier and, so, the author of John had to give his best guess about what Jesus might have said. Dr. Ehrman also talked about what makes reliable history, namely multiple eyewitness accounts written shortly after the described events which do not contradict each other too much and do not show signs of collaboration.
The question and answer period was a total mess because It just was not clear to me what Dr. Bass was saying most of the time although he did a lot of scripture quoting without really dealing with the question of how we know that a given scripture is historical.. This was very frustrating for me and I am sure it was for Dr. Ehrman as well. Dr. Bass did say that the description in Matthew of the Resurrection of people from graves following the death of Jesus was probably not historical. During this question and answer period, Dr. Ehrman did a good job of sticking to his two main points and talked some about the unreliability of even eyewitness accounts. He also clarified that the meaning of the “son of man” phrase is quire complicated and messy and is not the same as saying that someone is “God ” The same is true for the word “Lord.” He also talked, like he has written in his book “How Jesus Became God,” about how Roman emperors had been called “God” during this period of time. One question had to do with Jesus forgiving sins and people worshiping Jesus and didn’t this show that Jesus was God. The answer Dr, Ehrmang gave is that one can forgive sins and be worshiped and still not be “God.”
Dr. Bass and Dr. Ehrman then summarized their main points in summaries that were very similar to their opening statements. I think that such an audience might need a bridge such as Dr. Hamilton’s book “Making Sense of the Bible” before they can really move on to Dr. Ehrman’s argument. It reminds me that for over a decade I have been presenting evidence of global.warming to a friend to no avail only to have him suddenly change his mind after the pope, the bridge which can be heard in this case, made a statement about the matter.
It’s kind of funny how different your debates are, depending on who your dance partner is.
Bart vs. Christians: Jesus–divine or not divine?
Bart vs. Atheists: Jesus–real person or myth?
Bart vs. Certain Persons on this forum–Jesus: aspiring Messiah and King of the Jews, or self-immolating prophet out to trigger the End Times by getting himself killed?
Paul said he was all things to all people, but really, I think Jesus has him beat. 😉
I don’t know if they are “worth it” to you. You do help support your charity, and it is certainly enjoyable for those of us who follow your work. But you won’t change the mind of the audience, and only you know if the time it takes out of your life is worth it. I’m always amazed when I look at someone’s site and they make claims along the line of “Christian destroys Ehrman”, “Christian wiped the floor with Ehrman”, etc. I keep checking to see if we watched the same debate!
In any case, although I personally enjoy these, I would definitely understand if you chose not to pursue future debates.
I understand what you mean. When I was a fundamentalist I would probably have been shielded away from you, and I might not have really listened had I heard you. I remember we were watching a series of videos meant to foster meaningful discussion, called NOOMA by Rob Bell. I didn’t know who he was, and the videos were curious and kind of artsy. I liked them at the time. But once a member of the group learned of Bell’s position on the teaching of hell, the DVDs suddenly vanished and we moved onto a different topic.
But I commend Collin College for opening people up to the discussion. I don’t know what i would’ve though about you had I heard you back then. Probably with half a closed brain. And it wasn’t speakers like you who brought me out of the fundamental camp either. Just my own writing each day and asking my own questions. But once I did discover you thanks to a friend’s recommendation, it was perfect timing in my personal studies. I wanted to say how thankful I am for your hard work.
I don’t think I have 2 hours and 47 minutes today…! but someday I’ll give this whole thing a listen. I look forward to it and I’m very grateful.
My observations after viewing this video just one time. At minimum, this debate illustrates a real possibility that Jesus himself did not utter all these statements that he was “on par” or the REAL Son of God. (I don’t even want to address the Son of Man because the term is so unclear to me — I mean, everyone is Son of Man in some sense)
My own conclusion after having interacted with many “true” Christians is that people believe WHAT they want to believe. For example, if a mom wants to believe that her son is “special”, she will believe it, even though her son is only special to her because of all the subjective feelings and memories evoked when she thinks of her son. It’s not that much different from a mother believing her son did not commit a crime despite a mountain of evidence.
What I am saying is one can latch onto this and that to maintain one’s belief. The very fact that there are bona fide disputes about the very fundamental issues about Christianity by so-called “experts” leads me to believe that IF Jesus was a God or a close equivalent of God, you would think he could send Jesus again and reach out to people in this internet age and demonstrate certain TRUTHS more unequivocably.
To me, the concept of God is outside any book, i.e., you don’t need any book to arrive at the concept of God, so I still “wish” that there was a just God, but I have to say I find the entire concept of being forgiven for your past acts by believing in so-so VERY MUCH repulsive. Now, don’t get me wrong: I understand why some people would find that concept attractive because if you committed some unforgivable wrongs such as killing an innocent person, why wouldn’t you want to grab onto this belief?
Anyway, at the end of the day, I remain an agnostic not because I want to but because I have not yet found a convincing reason to change my belief.
These debates to primarily church audiences, where beliefs are firmly entrenched, may indeed not have much impact, but to the extent these can get uploaded to YouTube and become available on the public Internet, then there is a potential audience ranking in the millions. So, yes, your debating efforts are worth the whole. You have already been hugely influential in that regard.
BTW, I understand my friend Miguel Conner is hosting a debate between you and Robert Price. I think Miguel pretty much comes down on the Mythicist side, whereas I side with the historical Jesus likilihood. Miguel, above all else, though, loves to promote the public discourse on these subjects.
One of these days you should take a look at Christian Mystics such as Emanuel Swedenborg, the modern NDE phenomena (which Raymond Moody refers to Swedenborg in a chapter of his famous book, Life After Life), and those of the modern era (I count myself as one such) that continue to have these paranormal experiences that correlate to that of Swedenborg. (Miguel is an experiencer too.)
I am a big fan of your debates. Please continue to give the blog notice of any upcoming events!
Why do you think that so many Christians, even Christian scholars, get so emotional and try to defend tooth and nail the concept that Jesus is God, as well as the whole trinity doctrine, when it so clearly defies common sense and logic, as well as many texts in Paul’s writings and the Synoptics, but will be more reasonable and flexible on other doctrinal subjects?
Yes, highly religious people tend to want others to agree with them in their beliefs!
At the end of the day, any religion is based on emotion, hopes and desires. Religion is not science. Lol
Bart, from the bottom of my heart, not only is what you do a very good thing, it’s a necessary work of great importance. Never doubt that.
I watched this debate a second time and have two more comments:
1. If a person were really God or thought He/She were God, wouldn’t He/She make that crystal clear rather than just implying it in some hard to interpret “son of man” type statements? Wouldn’t it have been a lot clearer for Him/Her to just say “I am God”?
2. With regard to the famous often quoted C.S. Lewis trilemma asking whether Jesus was Lord, lunatic, or liar, I would suggest adding a fourth “L” option, namely was He mostly legendary?
Great debate Dr. Ehrman. Dr. Bass’s response to the question of whether Jesus claimed to be God was pointing to the Son of Man sayings as evidence that Mathew, Mark, and Luke were trying to hint the readers to who Jesus really was. I find it hard to believe that these authors would have taken the time to write these accounts without clearly indicating to the readers who they thought Jesus really was. Does Dr. Bass really think that Mark wrote his gospel hoping that someone decades later would write a more clear and explicit account of what Jesus was really saying? Luke explicitly says that he is writing his own account “so that you may know the certainty of the things that you have been taught”. Yet Dr. Bass claims that Luke (and Mark&Matthew) were just hinting to who Jesus was and therefore it was their intention to leave it up to the reader to figure out what these authors were REALLY saying about Jesus. It sounds preposterous.
My view is that Matthew Mark and Luke did understand that Christ was God in some sense; but the fact that he doesn’t go around saying so shows they didn’t have any traditions indicating that he *claimed* to be God. For them he was made God at the resurrection.
Hello Bart
“he said if mark, luke… want to build a case”
mark 8:29:”But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” isn’t this the same “i am” which is used in john?
mark had the available language and according to bass mark thought “i am” meant god. so why didn’t peter say , “you are ‘i am’ “?
I would like to point out that trying to emphasize memory recollection enhancements during events such as Pearl Harbor, JFK, 911, etc are not “very” comparable to pre-instant media transfer. News travel in modern times allows the experience to recollect the same day type associations, whereas when someone would have asked you before instant information propagation “Where were you 30 days ago when Mohammed Al Lee knocked out the sultan of swing?” just doesn’t deserve the same associative effects.
Dr. Ehrman
Don’t be discouraged and slow not your pace. “This kind of thing” is indeed “worth it,” but the impact of your debates, scholarship, and written works may well wait for other generations. Like the arguments of Galileo and Darwin, great ideas often fall on fallow ground, with germination long delayed by the milieu into which they’re introduced. It took two millennia for Democritus’ concept of the atom to be realized, and germane to your field, most of two centuries until German scholars were recognized for positing “Das Quelle.”
As a fellow academic, I share your frustration when eyes glass over during the crux of a painfully prepared presentation, but suggest that you notice those (few) which don’t: it’s they who’ll nurture your nidus and pass it to other eager eyes, and if there be merit in your arguments, they’ll sprout and blossom… It’s the nature of knowledge and its champions.
Please. Keep on keepin’ on…
Dr. Erhman
First id like to say I feel honored joining your blog, love all your talks and books especially listening to you on Audio the learning company. Thank you so much for this Blog.
how did the disciples other then the self proclaimed disciple ( paul ) claim or think Jesus to be God?
The verse I and the father are one proves nothing because Jesus also is quoted as saying “that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. ” so it wasnt meant literal
Whoever has seen me has seen the father is ambiguous. could have meant it not in the literal sense. As in I am the messenger of GOD the spokesperson of GOD, The Ambassador of GOD so I represent God, whoever seen me has seen GOd.
His preexistence doesn’t prove he is GOD just proves he pre-existed. As Muslims we do believe we all have existed ( our souls ) before we were born. dont want to get into the details lol.
verses like the father is greater then I, and why do you call me Good none is Good but the one God. I do the will of the father. Those clearly show that they knew and thought he wasnt GOD.
Now as for the verse I am , is that translation 100% identical to GOD telling moses I am?
Also in john in the beginning was the word then the word was with GOD and the word … Jehovah witnesses claim it says the word was A god. NOT the word was GOD is that true?
These are precisely the issues I deal with in my book How Jesus Became God. Check it out!
I’m never really sure if I agree to these debates, thinking Richard Dawkins has a good point–your acceptance of the debate did more for Mr. Bass’ resume than for your own. I noticed right away that he avoided the question by saying Paul claimed he was God, which to me was strange. John is much more explicit in this, so if one is to subscribe to authority he might as well keep it simple.
So I wonder how do you set up a debate, meaning is there a back-and-forth over what the question is? How can one party agree to the debate but argue a different question (as Mr Bass did here)? Or is it apropos to disagree with the question and realign it?
btw–that was not a little bit funny when he dared you to name “Sophia”.
apologies–it was the funniest thing I’ve ever seen in a debate.
Yes, the two sides have to agree on the wording of the question ahead of time. Otherwise it would be a disaster!
The most frustrating thing to me concerning the debate was the continual apparent attempt to change the question that was the subject of the debate. Did Jesus call himself God? Your opponent kept referring to Paul, Peter, etc., etc., etc. referring to Jesus as God, but that was not the question. I wanted to shout, “STICK TO THE QUESTION!!!!” Dr. Ehrman, I think you did a wonderful job and I could tell you shared my frustration.
I found out that you actually debated Justin Bass a few days ago on the Youtube, I watched it couple times, and here what I think. Justin is a good speaker, for regular church going folks. A lot of them were not the critical thinkers or theologians, and so when you point out the heresy of him confusing the father and the son, no one protested, When I was in the Evangelical circle, every time I thought it was proper to bring up theology or to point out the faulty theological examples on trinity, people just roll their eyes. There is not such thing as the father is the son, they would have been anathematized and cast out of the church in the ancient days. It is like a bad dream when Justin kept on confusing the father with the son.
I watched him and Gary Habermas who disguised cleverly they do not care whether there is mistakes in the text about Pauline writings concerning resurrection. I think it begs the question that the only credible source we have on Jesus is from these texts by early Christian writers. There is no physical proof that Jesus taught these, and it seems likely the Jesus of Paul is different significantly from the Jesus of the gospels and the Jesus of James.
Having only writings by early believers on his acts and life, is actually not historical credible to say that Jesus taught and did exist. Good luck on debating Robert Price. I just bought the online ticket and will be watching you from Cape Cod,. Mysticists have been on my mind a lot these days. On one hand you have crazies like Gary Habermas, a product of Detroit Bible College, a true fundamentalist who disguised as a critical scholar, and on the other, a renown Mysticist, Dr. Price. This would be the event to see whether who is more persuasive, Ever since I became dead again, Jesus has been in and out of my dead mind, sometimes he is gentle and kind and at times, a bastard, a terrible persecuting person. Who, exactly, is this Jesus of Nazareth? That, is the question.
Hi Bart, I was wondering what you thought about Matthew 11:27 which says, “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”
I just recently watched your debate with Justin Bass and want to know why you don’t think Jesus said it. I was skimming through Dr. Bass’ post debate article and he claimed that this saying dated to the early 50s. This still seems late in my opinion. It seems that a lot can happen if people are telling stories about what Jesus said for 20 years. But this saying is also found in Q.
What are you thoughts on this? Could it be authentic? Do we just not know? And what would it mean if it were authentic?
This verse has long been called the “Johannine Thunderbolt,” because it seems to fit better in the Gospel of John than the Gospel of Matthew. But recently some scholars have argued that it fits perfectly well in Matthew as well. Jesus is the one through whom God reveals his truth (as in the Sermon on the Mount). (Putting it in the 50s: how would we know? Even if it was from then, why would that mean Jesus said it twenty-five years earlier?)
Not sure if you’re going to see this comment given how long ago this debate occurred, but I have been re-watching it just now.
At 1:13:20 there is a very interesting back-and-forth over whether Paul understood Jesus to be synonymous with “Yahweh”. It seems to me the two of you were unintentionally talking over each other with different understanding of terms. You seemed to be understanding “Yahweh” as exclusively synonymous with “the Father”, whereas Bass seemed to be understanding “Yahweh” as the name for the Trinitarian Godhead that would include Jesus + the Father + the Holy Spirit. In terms of historical heresy, it is true that saying Jesus is synonymous with the Father was regarded a heresy. However, was there ever any declaration that saying Jesus is synonymous Yahweh (specifically the term “Yahweh”) is also a heresy?
That’s right. And I think his view is neither traditional nor biblical. Think of Psalm 110, and it’s use in the NT: Yahweh said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand….” Yahweh is talking to someone *else* who is called the Lord, and Xns took this to mean the Father was talking to the Son. The Trinity was not talking to the Trinity.
Hello Bart and hello all.
I have watched many of these debates on YT, mostly debating science / atheism vs religion, or fundamentalism / liberalism vs progressive / interpretative approaches to Christianity and the bible, or in politics / economics, the debates between free market capitalism vs socialism. There’s a few things that I’ve noticed in common among all :
– the bifurcation of views and opinions in contemporary society means that people are stuck in their own ghetto, and more interested in defending their biases.
-Many of the comments below the videos focus on who wiped the floor with who, and not really on the substance of what is being debated. It seems to be about whether your guy won than actually learning anything.
– The moderators for these debates mostly do a good job
– The debaters themselves are mostly civil, with some notable exceptions.
– The debates, whilst mostly interesting, never quite live up to the hype.
I’m happy that these debates exist, and I will continue to watch them, but how much you can get out of them is I guess, er…………..up for debate.
Keep up the great work. I really enjoy it.
Bart,
In your debate on the resurrection with Justin Bass that just aired two days ago on Unbelievable? you say that Jesus’ apocalyptic followers could not imagine the soul living separately from the body, so when they had a bereavement vision of Jesus they concluded Jesus was bodily resurrected up to heaven (25-29 minute point at https://www.thebigconversation.show/videos/season-5/episode-1/). It would seem to follow that a whole lot of other apocalyptic Jews (about 1 in 8) who had bereavement visions of lost loved ones also concluded that their lost loved ones had been bodily resurrection up to heaven. Do you accept this conclusion, or are you suggesting Jesus was a special case for some reason? Thank you.
I’m afraid I don’t know how many apocalyptic Jews had bereavement visions (these are normally of family members) or if the unique circumstances surrounding Jesus’ death were a contributing factor (expectations he’d be the messiah, horrible execution, guilt over how they reatded at the end), and if so, how many of the disciples had visions. But yes, if an ancient apocalyptic Jew thought someone was alive again, for most of them we know of at least, bodily resurrectoin was the option.
Bereavement visions are usually unexpected, so it seems reasonable to assume that apocalyptic Jews had these experiences at the same rate as anyone else. However, whatever the rate, a *whole lot* of apocalyptic Jews must have had bereavement visions of lost loved ones, and it makes sense that multiple people sometimes had these experiences after the death of a loved one just like sometimes happens today and just like you propose for Jesus. That there is nothing in the historical record about any Jews ever thinking their lost loved one had been bodily resurrected up to heaven suggests that apocalyptic Jews had another explanation for these experiences, perhaps dismissing them as a figment of their own imagination like many people do today, which is fairly easy to do after reflecting on the event because the image is usually very brief and says nothing at all, or least nothing of any relevance beyond “I’m ok, don’t worry.” Whatever the non-resurrection explanation the apocalyptic community had for these experiences, that would seem to be the same conclusion they would have reached about their post-mortem experiences with Jesus. Do you see my point and how do you get around this problem?
I’m not really sure — I’d say it’s pretty difficult to explain a phenomenon for which we don’t have any record. But no, I don’t think that everyone necessarily would have the same interpretation, any more than happens today. What I think we can say for certain is that the followers of Jesus claimed they saw him alive and concluded he had been raisd from the dead. What other apocalyptic Jews might have thought for appearances we have no records of — I just don’t know.
Well, even with no record of how apocalyptic Jews reacted to bereavement visions, your theory seems to require that either 1] at least *some* other apocalyptic Jews who had bereavement visions of lost loved ones concluded they were bodily resurrected up to heaven (and this just hasn’t left a trace in the historical record), or 2] a reason be put forth explaining why Jesus was the only exception. Don’t you agree, or is there some other way out of this dilemma?
I”m open to all options. All have their difficulties. I don’t know of a better one than the one I’ve put forth. Ass my mentor Bruce Metzger used to say “It is the least problematic solution”
You said you’re open to options, so I have one for you. You need to add to your bereavement vision hypothesis a significant amount of *rationalization* of Jesus’ death on the part of Jesus’ followers. We know groups sometimes rationalize new beliefs into existence when faced with a catastrophic defeat (Millerites => second coming of Jesus in heaven instead of on earth; Sabbatians => Messiah intentionally converting to Islam to defeat Islam from within). There was plenty of raw material for Jesus’ followers to rationalize Jesus died for our sins, was resurrected and translated up to heaven (novel combining of resurrection and translation forced by the fact of Jesus’ death), and would return soon to usher in the final redemption. These beliefs would have answered the two most pressing questions faced by Jesus’ followers — why did the Messiah have to die, and how can a dead man still be the Messiah? – and reflect all of the logic one would expect of a human rationalization trying to maintain the view that Jesus was still the Messiah despite his death. Rationalization made easier by Jesus’ non-military orientation and corpse not available to disconfirm the resurrection belief. Questions?
Thanks.
You’re welcome, I think (I thought you might ask a question or offer an objection).
Bart,
Another thought on this. Even if first-century Jewish apocalypticists routinely or sometimes concluded from their bereavement visions of deceased loved ones that they had been resurrected up to heaven and this has somehow left no trace in the historical record, we would at most expect Jesus’ followers to conclude the same about Jesus but without the conclusion that he was still the Messiah. So I think you’re still stuck needing a significant amount of rationalization on the part of Jesus’ followers. Same if you propose Jesus was the only person ever thought resurrected up to heaven due to a bereavement vision. The bereavement vision hypothesis needs a significant amount of rationalization on the part of Jesus’ followers to even be viable. If you are interested, I can contact you via email and provide a fair amount of condensed research on this topic.
Dr. Ehrman,
I just watched your most recent debate with Justin Bass on the ressurection (excellent job, by the way). I did have a couple of questions:
1. You mentioned that since the earliest disciples/followers of Jesus were apocalytipic Jews, then for them to have had a vision or experience of someone who had died meant they would have naturally thought it was a resurrection (since they don’t have the same understanding of the separation of body/spirit like we do; thus to see Jesus meant his spirit went back into his body and he must be resurrected). That said, what do you make out of verses such as Matthew 14:26-31 where the apostles thought they saw a “ghost,” not a person resurrected?
2. Also, according to the passed down story written decades later in Luke (Luke 24:36-51), the disciples first did think he was a ghost. Clearly, these followers (in the story, and those who were telling the story, and those who were listening to the story) were probably mostly still apocalytic Jews, so if they equated a vision of someone from the dead as a bodily resurrection, how do you account for the legend story of Luke 24:36-51?
1. It’s hard to say. The Greek word is “phantasma” which doesn’t mean usually what we think of as “ghost” but something like “image” “unreal thing.” They appear to think it’s some kind of non-human entity. Even “spirits” in most ancient thought were “material” beings unlike our ghosts; but the material they were made of was much more refined than our course bodily matter, and so could do things our bodies can’t. We tend to think they thought they were seeing Jesus’ own ghost, but the text doesn’t say that. They thought it was a phantasm, and he says, no, it’s me. 2. Same here. This time, though, they think they see a pneuma — “spirit” — and Jesus assures them that he is actually still in his body, and proves it by eating some fish, apparently to show he had a digestive system still!
Dr. Ehrman,
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding something, but isn’t that the point Dr. Bass was making?
Why would Peter (or James and Mary; or any of the other “first ones” to have visions) think they had seen a bodily resurrected Jesus instead of just a spirit-form Jesus? Clearly, these texts indicate that apocalyptic Jews believed that people could appear in spirit form from the dead (without being bodily resurrected). So what would have led the earliest Christians who had visions to believe they saw Jesus bodily ressurected instead of just his spirit form?
Don’t these texts refute the idea that apocalyptic Jews would have only thought dead people could appear in bodily form from the dead?
That’s what I’ve been explaining. Apocalyptic Jews didn’t think that at death the body was raised in a spirit form. It was bodily raised.
One last point I would like to hear your thoughts on, too…
Today (and in the past), we know that countless people have reported having visions of dead loved ones appearing to them, talking to them, touching them, and so on…but do we know of any (be it in ancient history, more recently, or even currently) who believe their dead loved ones were physically and bodily raised from the dead for a period of time?
While I don’t believe Jesus was resurrected, I do believe this point needs more attention. If they would have only thought that Jesus had appeared to them from the dead in spirit form, then that’s easily answerable…but what’s not (in my opinion) is *why* they believed he had been *bodily* raised.
I think your response about apocalyptic Jews and the bodily resurrection is inadequate since we know apocalyptic Jews believed that people could appear from the dead in spirit form.
Sure, 1 out of 8 people have had a vision/experience of someone dead appearing to them. But how many people believe that their dead loved ones (who actually died) were bodily resurrected for a period of time? I haven’t been able to find any examples.
I imagine there are people who do — ceratinly those who ascribe NDEs to an act of God. But these people did not believe he was raised in spirit form. That’s the point. Where do we know of apocalyptic Jews thinking the bodily resurrection was resurrectoin in a spirit form? WHat texts are you thinking of?
Dr. Ehrman,
That’s my question: Why would the first people to have these experiences have thought it was a resurrection at all? Why not just think Jesus was appearing to them in spirit form from the dead? Clearly, that was a belief based on Luke 24:36-51. What would make them think it was a resurrection?
I understand your point that if they thought it was a resurrection, then it would have naturally been a bodily resurrection since that’s how they thought resurrections work.
But my point is why did they think this was a resurrection at all? Why not just attribute it to Jesus appearing to the in spirit form from the dead (cf. Lk. 24:36-51; Mt. 14:26-31; etc.)?
I”m clearly not making myself clearly! It’s because ancient apocalyptic Jess did not believe that the afterlife came to the spirit but to the body. They didn’t have a conception of the spirit living on. Afterlife, if it comes at all, comes in a resurrected body, not in the spirit surviving the body.
Dr. Ehrman,
HA! No, I can assure you I’m just horrible at asking questions (just ask my wife! lol!). Let me give it another go:
– I understand and believe that acpocalytic Jews did not believe that the resurrection came to the spirit but to the body and spirit. That’s not my question or point of contention. Here are my questions:
– We know acpocalytic Jews believed in disembodied spirits according to Luke 24:36-42 and Mt. 14:26. If these Jews didn’t think that disembodied spirits were of dead people, then what did they believe about these disembodied spirits? Who (or what) did they think they were?
– It seems that the Jews could have just thought Jesus was still dead and not resurrected, but rather appearing to them in spirit form as in 1 Sam. 28:3-24 or Mt. 14:26. In fact, that seems to be what they did believe at first (according to the story passed down; Lk. 24:36-42).
I feel like I might be just missing something?
Luke 24 was written by Luke, who was not an apocalyptic Jew. A disembodied spirit would be a non-human. 1 Sam 28 was not written by an apocaylptic Jew. I’d say you don’t find my argument that apocalyptic Jews would interpret a person returned to life as bodily resurrected. That’s fine! My sense is that most people have a hard time getting their mind around it since it’s just so sensible to us today (since we’re raised on it) that the soul lives on apart from the body.
Dr. Ehrman,
I think I’m starting to follow the line of reasoning. So, in a nutshell…
1. Some ancient Israelites used to believe the dead continued living in some spiritual state without a physical body (per 1 Sam. 28).
2. The author of the Gospels, at least Luke, believed that the dead could continue in some spiritual state without a physical body.
3. But neither of these texts (or any analogous to it) were written by apocalytpic Jews.
4. Apocalyptic Jews had no concept of the dead being able to continue in the spirit without the resurrected body.
5. Thus, since the first ones to have claimed to see Jesus were apocalyptic Jews, it would have been natural to think that Jesus had been bodily resurrected since that’s the only way THEY would have believed Jesus could have appeared after dying.
Is that a correct summary?
If you mean a summary of my view, no. I disagree with 1 and 2. 1 Sam 28 doesn’t say whether Samuel was living somewhere before being called up. he may simply have been in his grave as a dead corpse. 2. Luke argues atainst the idea that Jesus was a spirit being alive after his body died. I do think 4 & 5 are basically right.
Dr. Ehrman,
Okay, I’m with your line of understanding on all points except the one about Luke.
Luke 24 talks about how they first thought Jesus was a disembodied spirit. Doesn’t this imply at least SOMEBODY believed in disembodied spirits? They (those who told the stories, repeated them, wrote them) wouldn’t have thought Jesus was something they didn’t believe existed (i.e. disembodied spirit).
I know the story is conveying that Jesus wasn’t just a disembodied spirit (but a resurrected physical body), but some group(s) told these stories, repeated them, and wrote them and they had to believe that disembodied spirits appearing to people was something that happened. Otherwise, it makes no sense to include these examples if this was something they didn’t believe in.
Same thing with Matthew in Mt. 14:26. This implies they (whoever first came up with this story or told it, the audience, author of Matthew, etc.) believed in ghosts, disembodied spirits, appirations, etc. Right? Otherwise, how do you explain the inclusion of ghosts/disembodied spirits/appirations in the Gospels if the authors and those telling the story didn’t actually accept that ghosts/disembodied spirits/appirations are a reality?
Yes, it shows that Luke, a gentile living 50 years later in a different part of the world, believed in disembodied spirits, just like about everyone else in the gentile / Greek world.
I did not find this a good debate. Perhaps if each participant were allowed to give, without interruption, a lengthy opening statement and
better etiquette were followed it might have been. I wish Bart had stuck closer to the NT for rebuttal.
Example:
Chronologically, who wrote that they saw first saw a risen Jesus ?Paul. Did Paul report seeing a resuscitated corpse or spirit.
This was before 70 AD. Where the gospel writers working after 70AD. Yes. Who wrote the first gospel? Mark after 70AD.
Does Mark tell of a resurrection of the body or spirit of Jesus? No. Why did he leave it out? What did the disciples do after the crucifixion? They went back to work. And so on. Beat Brian with his own stick.