It is time – well past time, some of you may think – for a new thread. And one is oh-so-ready-to-hand. My new book, How Jesus Became God, will be released on Tuesday (March 25). I am unusually eager for that to happen. I’ve never had a trade book (i.e., written for a popular audience) that I’ve been as invested in. Many of my other ones have done well, and I’ve been proud of each and every one of them (they’re like your children – you love each of them dearly and deeply ….). But this is that one that I think is the really important one – in its way, more important than Misquoting Jesus, and all the rest.
That’s because the question it’s dealing with is really BIG, in my opinion. It may sound a bit outlandish, crazy, or over the top, but I think a case can be made that the question of how Jesus became God is one of the most important questions for the history of Western Civilization. OK, that does make it sound like I’m just trying to sell books, but it’s not that. Whether I *answer* the question adequately is another matter. But the question itself is BIG, and it’s obviously not one that I came up with. It’s just one I’m addressing.
And here’s why it is so big.
If Jesus’s disciples had never declared that he was divine, they would have remained a sect within Judaism, a small group of apocalyptic Jews who thought that Jesus’ proclamation of the coming Son of Man was right and that they could expect the imminent end of the age and the appearance of the Kingdom of God. If they converted others to their views, they would have remained a small part of first-century Judaism. But since the followers of Jesus came to think he was actually a divine being, the religion transcended its Jewish matrix and began to attract Gentiles to it. It became, eventually, a separate religion from Judaism. That would not have happened if Jesus had remained a Jewish teacher/preacher/prophet.
The best demographics suggest that the Christian religion grew at a rate of about 40% per decade from its beginning until the early fourth century. Virtually all of these conversions were of Gentiles, not Jews. It would not have happened if Jesus had not been declared God. If masses of Gentiles had not converted, then there would not have been somewhere between two and half to three million Christians at the beginning of the Fourth century – something like 5% of the entire Roman empire.
If Christianity had not been a sizeable minority in the Empire at the beginning of the fourth century (or even more, if it had still been a small sect within Judaism), there is no way the emperor Constantine would have converted. If Constantine had not converted, there would not have been the massive conversions of the fourth century. Without the massive conversions of the fourth century, the Roman world would not have become Christian, and Christianity would not have been declared the state religion by the emperor Theodosius in 380 CE.
If the Roman world had not become Christian – both demographically and officially – then everything that happened subsequently in the history of the West would have been incalculably different. We would not have had the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Reformation, arguably the Enlightenment, and Modernity as we know it. And most of us would still be pagans.
All of this – ALL of it – hinges on the belief that Jesus was God. If that belief had never come into existence, and if so many people had not bought into it, the entire history of the West would have been so different as to be unrecognizable.
So for me, this is the BIG question of Christianity, and of religion in the West, and of civilization in the West. Pretty big.
My book is about how it happened. I’ve posted on it earlier, but I’ll say a few more things in the days to come.
Dr Ehrman: I am anxious to read your book. It will download to my computer on Tuesday from Amazon along with the Audio version. I have told my friends not to bother me for a few days while I digest your book. I think that there was a small bunch in Jerusalem at the time of Yeshua who followed him but that they gave up after his execution…The key to the religion was Saul of Tarsus..He met with Peter and James but they didn’t trust him and I can’t say I blame them. What ever happened to him on the road to Damascus we can never know the truth…Perhaps he had a stroke…Some stroke victims become religious of sorts; more whacked in the head from the blood clots….We can never know. I doubt seriously that Yeshua ever said eat my body and drink my blood; he was just too Jewish for that to have been said. Yet, Saul said he did say to him in a dream or a moment of delusion. People had strokes and cardio vascular problems in those days too. They just didn’t know what was happening to them. Demons got the blame.
There is only one God based on the definition of God. As amazing as God is, even God can’t make another God because that God would have to be before he was. God was never born and will never die. The distinction between God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy spirit are based on “functions” of God.
As a human, I have a brain, heart, and stomach. (different functions within the same body)
God the father can’t be in the presence of unholiness. ( Holiness is the unchanging character of God; God is not only without sin but is incapable of sinning. He can’t lie or not keep his word. His justice is perfect and his love is perfect.
If you recall the Old testament, God the father has only been seen by two people. Adam and Eve before the fall. Adam and Eve were initially without sin. But when they broke the covenant with God (they lied!) they became unholy. If God had at that time made his physical presence known to them they would have been permanently and eternally separated from God. ( that is Hell; not made for humans but for anyone who rejects God)
But because God loved his creation, he had mercy on them and chose to hold off on his promise. Since God is unable to break his word, there has to be a death. “If you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you will surely die” There in a nutshell is the rest of the Bible. It is the story of God and his creation. His mercy, patience, wrath, love, and justice. It is also the story of you and me. We are descendents of these two whether you choose to believe or not.
The Jewish peple are descendents of Abraham. That is what makes them Jewish. Abraham lived around 4200 B.C. Anti-Semetics have been trying to killl the Jewish Nation of Israel for thousands of years thinking they can destroy their God! It can’t be done. No on can destroy God. Jesus of Nazareth is a descendant of Abraham. But Jesus wasn’t made by the seed of a Human. He is God in the form of a man.
This is the only way that a Holy God could come down to this Earth without totally destroying everyone in his presence!!!! Do you understand? That is why Mary had to be without sin and a Virgin (Her mother was also a virgin! get it?) Otherwise she would have been destroyed by the presence of God.
Jesus of Nazareth who is the Christ(Annointed one in Greek) is 100% God and 100% man. The Spirit of God had to be contained within his Holy Flesh. When Jesus was crucified, the spirit of God left his body in order to take the punishment that had to be taken by a just God. That is why he is the only way to God. You have to believe who God says he is or it doesn’t count.
The Holy Spirit was left behind after the debt was paid so that anyone who believes will receive the fee gift of the Holy spirit thus making them Holy to God. So when you die you can be in the presence of God for all eternity.
If you don’t have the holy spirit in you before you die, you will receive Gods Justice which is permanent separtion from him for all of eternity.
Until you are born again you will not be able to understand the Bible. The Holy Spirit is like a secret decoder ring. Without it you won’t believe that Jesus is God. It isn’t possible. You will think you are wise in your own eyes.
Romans 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Read all the old boy has written. I’ll take a stroke like his anytime.
We certainly can know the truth.
They were down when they murdered him. But, something happened that transformed them into upbeat, can-do, zealots.
Surely if Jesus was never worshipped as God, but the early Christians came to see him as a universal messiah for whole of humanity – akin to today’s Jehovah’s Witnesses’ view of Jesus as a created being – Christianity could still have dominated the Roman Empire? I am not sure the success of Christianity owes all that much to the belief in his divinity. One can have a Gentile-friendly Christian religion, but without belief in his divinity. No?
I really don’t think so. If Jesus was a Jewish messiah and not a divine being, I don’t see how masses of Gentiles would convert.
Would a divine being be the only appeal to get Gentiles to convert? And when they do, they’d have to assume a rather Jewish worldview. Paul’s theology is based on his Damascus conversion and his midrashim of Jewish texts and theology. So why would Gentiles prefer to convert to a Jewish divine man but not to other divine figures? I will check out your book, Dr. Ehrman, as I’ve been quite a fan of your work. I also hope your book articulates what you mean by “divine.”
Thanks!
Well, my sense is that Gentiles weren’t flocking to other forms of Judaism, so I doubt if they would have been drawn much to this one either. They were drawn to this divine man principally because this one could do some pretty amazing miracles (so the stories indicated).
Thanks, Dr. Ehrman.
So we have Paul preaching, as well as James the Just and his followers. Paul focuses on the Gentiles, while he also appears in synagogues on occasion. James and his followers are more Jew-focussed, with the occasional (or maybe more regular) encounter with proselytes. Both present a rather exalted Messiah, one who performed miracles, who was foreknown since before creation, who died and was resurrected. Peter’s discourse in Ac. 2 satisfies both Pauline and Jacobite strands of Messianism. If I understand you correctly, Paul’s Messianism had to be more appealing to the Gentiles, and the key to the appeal was the hero-package Paul offered them. Other than James’ Jesus figure, Paul’s Christ-figure was way more exalted and could be more easily related to, due their familiarity with divine and semi-divine heroes from their own culture.
I’m processing your proposal and have a few more questions. Suppose a non-Jewish Gentile were to encounter the stories of the exalted Enoch, would they have found Judaism more appealing? Or, bringing it closer to home (chronologically, that is), suppose Jews proselytizing Gentiles related the more recent stories of Honi the Circle-drawer or Hanina ben Dosa to Gentiles, wouldn’t that have had a similar effect on them? From a Gentile “cultural script,” these men (as well as the stories of the Exodus, Moses, Elijah and Elisha) could have been understood as divine or godlike. So the salient point of your proposal, namely a divine man, had one effect on Pauline proselytising but apparently no effect on Jewish proselytising. My question is whether the condition doesn’t extend beyond merely, “a divine hero.” One more factor could have been how aggressive Paul’s preaching was. Both Paul and James had apocalyptic expectations, their focus was just different. Paul had an aggressive preaching campaign, was apparently more apocalyptic than other Jewish strands, and was aimed at converting Gentiles. I’m still finding Paul to be presenting his case in a firmly Jewish paradigm. He presents Jesus in Jewish typology, not necessarily identical to Yahweh Himself, and the exaltation Jesus enjoys does not go beyond other highly exalted apocalyptic figures in Judaism. So I don’t see Paul necessarily breaking any Jewish theological principles. The major difference I do see between Paul and James is one disposes of Jewish practice, while the other upholds cultural and practical immersion. I’m still busy with your book, so you may be discussing this determining factor. I can just imagine the relief among Gentiles of being offered an exalted saviour without the requirement of renouncing one’s cultural heritage.
You mentioned something else above, namely that there was no flocking to other streams of Judaism. Yes, I get the same sense. But if Judaism had such a low appeal to Gentiles, then, why would you say did Ignatius have to write against Judaising in his Magnesians and Philippians? (Yes, these were already-converted Gentiles)
(Sorry, this comment wasn’t intended to be so long)
I’m not sure Gentiles en masse would have been attracted to any kind of Judaism that remained ethnically distinct, Enochic or otherwise. But there were always Gentiles who converted to be followers of Jesus (and still are) who then as a second step came to insist that the Jewish law needed to be followed. I think that is who Ignatius’s opponents were.
They were drawn to this divine man principally because this one could do some pretty amazing miracles (so the stories indicated). Dr. Bart
He did some pretty amazing things in you. Still is- and will- for all.
btw, i am so hooked, I now listen to the fine dr. to and from work in my car on his cds. Not only am I reading his books, I can hear his voice talking at me all day long!
Just mentioning “for argument’s sake”…when I was a child, I was given the impression that before the coming of Jesus, Judaism was the true faith. The Jews, sadly, didn’t recognize the Messiah when he came. But the Messiah was relevant for everyone because prior to his coming, everyone would – in an ideal world – have been practicing Judaism.
I didn’t understand, of course, how seldom Jews sought converts.
No one “converts” to Christianity!
You have to be “born again” of the Holy Spirit of God first before you believe.
No one-That is a universal negative- That means no human born of the flesh believes in the God of the Bible.
Thus the term “born again”
Did you choose to be born of your parents? Do you decide when you die? The answer is no!
Therefore you don’t decide to be a born again Christian. IT IS NOT UP TO YOU!
It is only by Gods grace that you are saved.
Grace is something you don’t deserve. So you either receive “Grace” or you receive “Justice”
God is justified in destroying all of us but because of his mercy, he doesn’t
**Don’t kill the messenger****
I am telling you the truth. If you aren’t willing to submit to God and admit that you are a sinner and recant of your sin and ask the Lord to come into your heart and be your saviour then you are not born again.
The only reason that someone would get on their knees and ask in the first place is because they have already
been regenerated.
I know because it happened to me!!!!!!!!
I was just like you before. I could quote you verbatim on every thought you have. It is all from the father of lies. He just repeats the same bull over and over again.
Give up! Just say uncle. Jesus loves you! Just submit. It is the most amazing thing you will ever do!!!!
In Christ,
Victoria
“I really don’t think so. If Jesus was a Jewish messiah and not a divine being, I don’t see how masses of Gentiles would convert.” Dr. Bart
Since he was neither, no one really ever converted, or just very few. The numbers were exaggerated to make this religion look pretty cool, I suppose?
I don’t understand your logic.
I suppose if Paul took a different route to Damascus, or didn’t have an epileptic fit on that fateful day, Pauline Christianity would not have taken root, leaving Christianity confined to Jews. Again, very different course of history of Roman empire. Or if Mary had sex on another night, and her child “Jesus” turned out to a girl, also very different course of history…
Maybe explaining how each of the above happened deserves a book 😉
“I suppose if Paul took a different route to Damascus, or didn’t have an epileptic fit on that fateful day, Pauline Christianity would not have taken root, leaving Christianity confined to Jews. (You mean like the woman at the well? “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.” 21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” 25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” 26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he…Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony,”) Again, very different course of history of Roman empire. Or if Mary had sex on another night, (on which night did she have sex before she gave birth to god?) and her child “Jesus” turned out to a girl, also very different course of history…Maybe explaining how each of the above happened deserves a book”
Or, suppose it may have happened as it was described in the n.t.
I am still eagerly waiting for a scholar to produce the bestselling trilogy: “Misquoting Moses”, “Moses Interrupted”, and “How Yahweh Became God”.
Surpassing Wonder, by Donald Harmon Akenson comes close to having done that.
I’m very excited for this book! I’ve been waiting a long time to read it. There are Christian denominations today that don’t believe Jesus is God and there were early Christian sects that didn’t believe in his divinity either. If one of these early sects became more popular than proto-orthodox denominations and eventually became widely accepted, would we really have a different civilization? In other words, was it really Jesus’ divinity or was it that a certain sect happened to “win” in the battle for the “true” version of Christianity?
Those ancient Jewish sects didn’t win too many converts. Either do the modern ones!
I read a few of your opening pages previewed online. On p. 7, you say you’ve changed your view on the burial of Jesus. Just curious your take on 1 Cor 15:3-7 and Gal 1:18-20. In 1 Cor, Paul quotes traditional material (albeit very briefly) about the burial and appearances to Cephas and James. Curious since you make a big to-do about Paul knowing James and Cephas in _Did Jesus Exist_. In Gal 1:18-20, Paul swears that he went to Jerusalem and stayed with Cephas for 15 days and also saw James. That seems to be an important early, firshand contact for Paul with people who should know about the burial of Jesus and those appearances he mentions in 1 Cor 15:5-7. Just curious your take on 1 Cor 15:3-7 in light of Gal 1:18-20… specifically, about the burial and appearances to Cephas and James. Thanks.
You’ll soon see!
Sorry to ask again… but I don’t see my question addressed in the book. I see you describe your take on 1 Cor 15:3-8, but what do you make of Gal 1:18-20 related to that? I know you stress the historicity of Gal 1:18-20 in Did Jesus Exist.
In Gal 1:18-20, Paul swears he spent 15 days with Cephas and also saw James. In 1 Cor 15:3-8, Cephas and James are the only two people Paul named as having seen the risen Jesus. It seems reasonable to think that much of what Paul says in 1 Cor 15:3-8 is based on info from Cephas and James. It seems like if Jesus was never buried, Cephas and James would know that and would correct Paul on that. Just curious as to your take on the connection between Gal 1:18-20 and 1 Cor 15:3-8 regarding the burial of Jesus…
We don’t know, historically, if Cephas and James knew about or talked about an empty tomb. James is never connnected with an empty tomb, and the stories about Cephas and the empty tomb are from over 50 years later. (Paul, of course, doesn’t mention it, so he provides no evidence that they knew aobut it)
Have already pre-ordered your book from audible.com. Can’t wait!!
But I raised my eyebrow at this statement:
“[Without the belief that Jesus was divine] we would not have had the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Reformation, arguably the Enlightenment, and Modernity as we know it. And most of us would still be pagans”
I’m not so sure about that. Sometimes I think that history is less about the details but more about the overarching trends that are perhaps less out of our control than we think. If it wasn’t Jesus of Nazareth who was elevated, I suspect it may have been someone else – maybe Maybe Jesus ben Ananias? maybe Apollonius of Tyana? maybe Paul would have been ‘inspired’ by a different Jewish sect? Evolutionary theory suggests the organism is shaped by it’s environment in ways that, if not inevitable, are somewhat predictable. And I suspect human society is much the same. Just as dolphins evolved from land mammals to resemble sharks (similar shape, size, colour, fill the same evolutionary niche etc.), I suspect the gentile world was ripe for a new ‘telos’ – and it just happened to be the sketchy story of the life of Jesus of Nazareth that was picked up on.
I’m not sure I agree that someone else needed to be elevated. Any number of other things may have happened — and if it *was* Apollonius (for example) we still would not have anything *like* history as it developed….
Bart, I know I should buy your book and I will but just curious right now: what is the earliest evidence then that the apostles, and other people who knew Jesus while he was alive, came to believe that Jesus was actually God? And in that case did they believe he was God or ‘just’ that he was divine (which would be an important difference)?
Ah, you need to read my book!
Would an absence of Christians have changed the development and spread of Islam?
I assume so!
That’s my point. Your suggesting that Christianity was a sine qua non for Islam (at least an Islam which would proceed to spread thoughtout the Ottoman empire). I don’t necessarily disagree, but I’d never really thought of it like that before.
Wow! This is a great summary of the importance of the question and your readers are “eager” about the book as well. I look forward to your discussion of the book at the Quail Ridge bookstore in Raleigh tomorrow night. The excerpts have been terrific, but I am eager to see how it all flows together. I hope the critics from both sides (the fundamentalists as well as the mythicists) treat the book with the respect it deserves. It sounds like a major contribution to our understanding of the world.
So exciting! I’m eagerly awaiting my copy in the mail from Amazon. Thank you in advance for writing this important work! I can hardly wait to read it!!
Are you presenting somewhat ground-breaking ideas in a this book? Since this is what you call a “trade book”, does that mean that the same stuff is dealt with in more depth in your scholarly works?
Nope, I haven’t dealt with this material in my scholarly books. This is the only trade book I’ve written where I actually changed my mind about key things and where I learned a *lot*….
Hi Bart,
I’m very excited to read your new book; I’ll be getting my copy in the mail on Thursday. Can’t wait.
In this book, did you talk about any of the changes in direction you made while writing it?
If not, is there any chance that sometime in the future, you might go over some of these changes in directions and why you made. I think it would be very fascinating to hear about this.
John
Yes, I mention a few things. It would be good to blog on….
I know you have a schedule of what projects you have coming up although I don’t know how firm that schedule is. At some point will you follow up “How Jesus Became God” with a more scholarly presentation?
Nope, won’t be doing that. At least no plans for it at this stage. Too many other books to write!
Can’t wait! I’ve had it on pre-order at Audible for what feels like eons.
“Most of us would still be pagans”? I doubt it. I think that if Christianity hadn’t taken hold (exactly as you say it did), most people today would be what you and I are: agnostics. And it would probably be a much better world.
Also, I’ll always wonder about two questions historians can’t answer: whether Jesus faked “miracles,” and whether his disciples faked believing he’d been resurrected.
I’m not sure the modern options of atheism or agnosticism would have been possible without Christianity….
“I’m not sure the modern options of atheism or agnosticism would have been possible without Christianity….”
“Modern options”? I’m baffled! It seems to me (but of course, what do I know about such things?) that there are really only two options: Disbelief or absolute uncertainty in the existence of God. What options are available now than were available back, say, 500, 1500, 2000 years ago, or more?
Moreover, Judaism, which gave us YHVH and without which there would be no Christianity, predates Christianity by eons, even so then does God, and so how can it be that but for Christianity atheism and agnosticism wouldn’t have been possible? Surely there were atheists and agnostics who didn’t believe or who were otherwise skeptical of the existence of God, long before there was Jesus, wouldn’t you think?
Obviously I’m missing something here, so could you please elaborate?
Well, 2000 years ago it would have been nonsense to say that the two options were belief in the existence of God or disbelief!!! Very very very few people could imagine non-belief, and very very very few believed in only one God!
I agree. Thanks, for clearing that up for me. 🙂
Perhaps they wouldn’t. But here’s how I’m thinking of it…
The actions of Constantine and Theodosius seem to indicate they knew most of their subjects no longer believed literally in all the Greco-Roman gods.
Suppose they’d let the Empire simply have no favored religion?
In that era, just about everyone would have been involved with some sect or other. But as centuries passed, the Empire’s subjects would have encountered more and more peoples who had different pantheons, creation myths, ceremonies. Appeals to all those different deities seeming sometimes to “work,” sometimes not to “work,” with the same randomness as whatever they themselves were doing.
Simultaneously, human knowledge would be increasing. Eventually, humans would have learned that weather phenomena, for example – which they’d been attributing to the gods – had natural explanations, and could be predicted and prepared for, if not controlled. Without the Church, researchers might have learned our place in the solar system at an earlier date.
And pagan sects were flexible enough that there wouldn’t have been a situation of every generation mercilessly indoctrinating its children, who’d do the same to their children.
I think that well before our time, many people would have concluded that if not all the competing sects could be “the true faith” – and none seemed to “work” better than the others – there was a good possibility none of them was “the true faith.” And in that case, none of them was worth practicing.
Actually, at the time of Constantine the vast majority of the empire believed in the Roman gods!
Thanks for correcting me on that point!
But I stick with the rest of what I said. I can’t conceive of any significant number of people today *still* believing in the Greco-Roman gods. I think the combination of encountering more *other* made-up pantheons, and making advances in science – in the absence of an authoritative Church and its indoctrination-from-the-cradle – would have led most people to abandon them.
As someone who was excited enough to pre-order this book, I’m glad to see that you are this excited about it. I also think this is a very important topic, can’t wait to read it.
Whew! When I saw someone else’s post about having apparently received a notice from Amazon re when the book would be shipped, I wondered why I hadn’t received an e-mail from them. Went to Amazon.com, checked “my orders,” and the list of shipped and unshipped didn’t show it at all.
I thought that when I had to change all my pre-orders to a new credit card recently, that pre-order had been lost altogether. Started to order it all over again – and a screen *then* popped up showing I’d pre-ordered it back in June, and it’s scheduled to ship…date of my probably receiving it later than the other person’s date, doubtless because I selected “regular” shipping.
I could very easily have missed noticing that screen that had popped up, and ordered a second copy. Just want to warn others that if they check Amazon now, the pre-order may not show up where they expect to see it. Why, I have no idea!
And jumping in this cascade of things that wouldn’t happen, here is a catastrophic result of Jesus not turning into God: there would be no blog! What an irreparable loss!
Ha! Good point…
Wilusa,
“I think that well before our time, many people would have concluded that if not all the competing sects could be “the true faith” – and none seemed to “work” better than the others – there was a good possibility none of them was “the true faith.” And in that case, none of them was worth practicing.”
Good point!
“I think that well before our time, many people would have concluded that if not all the competing sects could be “the true faith” – and none seemed to “work” better than the others – there was a good possibility none of them was “the true faith.” And in that case, none of them was worth practicing.”
Why would many people conclude none worked better than the others?
I look forward to tracking down this book in due course – congrats on getting through the publishing thicket.
One comment that I haven’t seen above (albeit I am new to your site and you likely have dealt with this somewhere), but the apotheosis of a person was already within the Greco-Roman culture was it not? The emperors were accorded divine status and were assumed to dwell with the gods on death. Cults were organised around worship of the emperor and his predecessors. It was early days of the empire at Jesus’ time, of course, so perhaps emperor worship was not well established. But by time of Constantine it certainly was. All to say, the ground was well prepared within the culture for a “divine man”.
How important was that factor in the gentile adoption of Christianity during the Roman period?
Ah, yes — you’ll need to read the book! This is one of the keys!
Downloaded to Kindle this morning. Looking forward to reading.
Hi Bart,
I can’t wait to read your new book! It looks so fascinating. I do have one question that speaks to the heart of the matter, and I don’t know if you address it in your book, but I’d like to find out if you have anything more to say on that in this forum:
How do you treat Paul’s *kenosis* passage in Philippians 2 with respect to the three ways that early Christians began to view Jesus as God? Obviously the evolution of these viewpoints is clearly demonstrated in the progression of the New Testament gospels (from Mark to John), but with Paul writing in the 50s CE, do you see evidence for early understandings of Jesus as a divine being equal with God the Father from time immemorial?
My questions hinges on two aspects of the kenosis passage: (1) Paul’s suggestion that Jesus securely existed in the form of God (so that it was not a thing to be grasped for), and (2) Paul’s attribution to Jesus of the kind of authority anticipated by Deutero Isaiah in 45:23 to be indicative of the God of Israel (that, at the [new] name of *Jesus*, every knee would bend and every tongue confess…).
Since the kenosis passage is often read by many scholars as an early church hymn, do you see this view of co-eternity with Yahweh as an early development and one that Paul popularized, or do you think that Paul is doing something new along the lines of a mystery cult here (or something else entirely)?
Thanks so much!!
Yes, I do indeed deal with the passage! Hopefully to your satisfaction….
No doubt! I’ve never “been left wanting” in explanation by you before, Bart!… ;o)
Having now read your explanation in the book, I get the impression that you have changed your views about Paul’s Christology to a view which is still a mainstream (maybe even the majority) scholarly opinion. Is that accurate?
I’ve changed my views, but my new views are not mainstream, in one very important way. I try to show in the book that Paul thought that before becoming a human Christ was an angelic being, the Angel of the Lord. This is not my idea — it’s been around for a while — but now I’m convinced of it and explain why. Conservative Christians find this view anathema.
I’m enjoying the read so far, into ch 2 (slow reader). It has revealed new awareness and refreshed some old. While I’m an ex Christian minister turned agnostic many years ago, I sense that what I’ve read so far would be of value to Social Christians who have had some troubles with the traditional Christian narratives but value their Social Christian perspective and have no desire to leave it.
Frankly, I’ve sometimes wondered if I’d not remained a Social Christian had an atmosphere existed that tolerated doing so. If my situation was at all typical, the increase of ex Christians is fueled in part by intolerance of concepts such as presented in this book.
What I’m suggesting is that ideas as offered in such books as this, may in the end serve more support to Christians rather than undermining. Of course, fundamentalist would take their licks, but the general Christian community might be strengthened.
“What I’m suggesting is that ideas as offered in such books as this, may in the end serve more support to Christians rather than undermining”
I was thinking the very same thing while reading Chapter 2. Per my understanding: “Wisdom” and “Word” both being attributes of God, thusly, God, though each maintain their own persona’s. The pre-existence of Jesus fits quite nicely, then, and makes a fair amount of sense out of John’s “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God”; “The Word (that Word being God) became flesh and dwelt among us.”
But for all of those other things that I have come to know, such as God’s abhorrence to human sacrifice, the point driven home, in the Old Testament, that no man can pay for the sins of another man, and the consumption of blood, I might again be prone to buying into it all. The mere thought alone is all so lovely, after all, and so well supports the churches teaching based on John’s understanding. But of course, I am but three-quarters of the way through Chapter 2; and so suppose I read far, far more slowly than you! ‘-)
It’s nice to know someone else who reads more slowly than not. I am oftentimes envious of those who can sit down and read an entire book in just one sitting and fully absorb every new concept presented! I cannot.
“Frankly, I’ve sometimes wondered if I’d not remained a Social Christian had an atmosphere existed that tolerated doing so.”
This part of your comment I also found striking. No such atmosphere exists. Not so far as I can tell.
“Frankly, I’ve sometimes wondered if I’d not remained a Social Christian had an atmosphere existed that tolerated doing so.”
“This part of your comment I also found striking. No such atmosphere exists. Not so far as I can tell.”
When yet quite young, I embraced Christianity after being told in those young years that Christianity represented the path of goodness and I was for that. It seems to me that the current movement has wandered somewhat off that path to engage a focus of avoiding eternal punishment.
I guess I now see unbelievers having a better vision of that old familiar path of goodness.
I think it’s a bit ludicrous that Craig Evans and others have ALREADY written rebuttal books to your book, Dr. Ehrman. How did they do this, unless they simply used previous statements of his to “rebut” these claims? There’s some discussion on Amazon and one person said that if someone received an advance readers’ copy, they could NOT use the contents to craft a rebuttal. Is this true with your publisher?
Anyway, I’ve read the sample online and will be checking this book out further. I think you’d done a great job with this topic, as expected.
I let them have my manuscript in advance. I’m a bit disappointed by their response. But then again, they were a bit disappointed by my book!
I appreciate your desire to start a new thread, but we were so close to wrapping up the multifaceted gospel analytics thread. Didn’t you have just a little more to say about Socio-historical analysis of the Johninne community?
Yup, I’ll be getting back to that. There are still two or three posts to go, but the new event overtook us.
Ever since I can remember, I’ve always personally believed that Jesus was a man…a prophet, who was filled with the Spirit (much like Dr. Martin Luther King, Gandhi, etc.) who was moved to help, teach and lead people. With that said, I never thought of him as a God. I have always been bothered with the Church’s rituals associated with making Jesus into a God—in particular, the Eucharist. From your research, do you believe that Jesus actually said this? Or is this fundamental ceremony rather an invention of the Church to make him into a God before the masses and perpetuate the myth? To help put it into perspective, out of all of the galaxies in the universe, why would God ever go to Israel 2,000 years ago, put Himself into a position where he would be crucified and then instruct this to people on earth to perform this ritual in memory of Him? I mean seriously, eat my flesh and drink my blood…the Son of God…really? I’m looking forward to your reply. Thanks!
Ah, I devote an entire chapter to just that question in my new book! I’ll be interested in your thoughts on it!
“Ever since I can remember, I’ve always personally believed that Jesus was a man…a prophet, who was filled with the Spirit (much like Dr. Martin Luther King, Gandhi, etc.) who was moved to help, teach and lead people. With that said, I never thought of him as a God. I have always been bothered with the Church’s rituals associated with making Jesus into a God—in particular, the Eucharist. ” Xavier
Why do you believe he was a prophet?
Dr. Ehrman,
I read with interest “How Jesus Became God” and the refutation, “How God Became Jesus,” and have two comments, which goes to both. They are: 1) both books presuppose that Jesus had an apocalyptic message in his ministry, and 2) both look to the Pauline epistles as the earliest Christian writings.
As to the first, Crossan posited (convincingly in my view), that Jesus’s ministry was “sapiential,” meaning the kingdom of God is among us now, and to enter one must act justly (as opposed to Paul’s sola fide ministry).
As to the second, a case has been made (Reiher, 2013) that the Epistle of James – written by James the Just, Jesus’s fraternal brother and the man who apparently inherited Jesus’s ministry – pre-dated the Pauline epistles. One supporting fact is the “mirror” statement in James 1:23-24, indicating that the Justification dispute with Paul had not yet been resolved, meaning it was written before the Council of Jerusalem, which took place in 50 C.E., arguable before the Pauline epistles were written.
I would be interested to know your thoughts on these matters. And also, if I may indulge in self-promotion on your blog, I have written a Reader’s Guide to Bart Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God, which may assist your readers interpret your book, as well as “How God Became Jesus” by Bird et al. You can get it here:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00M5R6WLC
Thank you!
Yes, I’m afraid Crossan’s view has never really caught on among the majority of scholars. For a more sustained argument that Jesus was probably an apocalypticist, see my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. My view of James is that it is responding to a misunderstanding of Pauline theology, so close to the end of the first century. That’s a fairly common view. If you want a sustained argument, see my book Forgery and Counterforgery.
If Jesus’s disciples had never declared that he was divine, they would have remained a sect within Judaism, a small group of apocalyptic Jews who thought that Jesus’ proclamation of the coming Son of Man was right and that they could expect the imminent end of the age and the appearance of the Kingdom of God. Dr. Bart
If jesus had not been god, they would have ignored him.
If jesus had not been god, we wouldn’t know a thing about them.
If jesus had not been god, he couldn’t have convinced them that he was.
If jesus had not been god, we wouldn’t be totally enthralled by him or discussing him, endlessly, and neither would billions of people across the globe for 2 millennia.
If he had not spoken like no one else, before or since, he would have been a mere man.
But, he was god. He said so and he proved it with every breath he took. All the fullness of god lived within him, his body.
Jesus was god. It isn’t the end of the world. All the work and energy devoted to proving he wasn’t, doesn’t change anything. Since he came to earth he’s been misjudged, abused, hated, mocked, tortured, called the devil, and finally murdered. Did he retaliate, even once, or conspire to get even, even once?
Repeatedly, he said he was god and he supported his claim with miracle after miracle. Even Herod had heard of him and was eager to see him perform.
“Criticism” asks excellent questions and pries into minutia to discover the hows and whys and whens. None of its answers disprove the gospels, at all.
Yes, if you simply believe everything the Gospels say about Jesus, then there’s no reason for scholarship or historical reconstruction. Everything they say is historically true. But if that’s what you think, why would you be interested in being on this blog??
“Yes, if you simply believe everything the Gospels say about Jesus, then there’s no reason for scholarship or historical reconstruction. Everything they say is historically true. But if that’s what you think, why would you be interested in being on this blog??” Dr. Bart
I don’t “simply believe” everything the gospels say. Reading and listening to you and other scholars is work. I keep learning. If someone has proof that something I believe is incorrect, I won’t continue to believe it.
I admire you. I am amazed how much work you’ve done and continue to do. You are unbelievable. You are one of the hardest working people I’ve ever seen, you are very bright and as fine a writer of non-fiction around, anywhere, today. What a combination.
I stay glued to your CDs, listening while I drive and look forward to my commute each day instead of dreading it.
Please don’t misinterpret my next statements. I do not mean for them to be devotional, though it may seem like I do. I don’t hate as much as I used to. Murderous rage doesn’t consume me, like it once did. I don’t hate and destroy myself as much, either. Dr. Bart, if I could have made those changes, I would have. I still have a hard time believing it, but it seems someone’s been helping me, for some reason.
Dear Ehrman
I hope I’m asking this question under the right post. The apostles preached Jesus sharing a seat with God in Acts 2:32-36. In Judaism, this would be a challenging idea. No one shares God’s presence, glory and authority.
Doesn’t this prove to us that the First Apostles viewed Jesus as a divine being?
I hope I’m not bothering you. I’m just trying to ask questions that I see as important. Thank you very much in advance.
Actaully, there is a well documented strain within Judaism of another divine being sharing the authority of God in heaven. There is an interesting book about this by Alan Segal, Two Authorities in Heaven. But yes, the apostles did come to thin that Jesus was this divine being, and so worshiped him as such.
Dear Ehrman,
I wanted to ask something I’ve been thinking about lately. Can you please correct me if I’m wrong?
I think, Paul believed that Jesus was God.(Titus 2:13, Romans 9:5)
We know that Paul visited the Church in Jerusalem while he was alive,and from time to time he had arguments with those who came from the church in Jerusalem.
I see two proofs that the Apostles believed that Jesus was God:
1-)There is no discussion of the divinity of Jesus in the first sources. There are discussions about Jewish Law and Circumcision. But I don’t see any discussion about the Godness of Jesus.If there were such a discussion, I think it would certainly be reflected either in the sources or in the early oral tradition.
2-) There is no abnormal style in the sources about Jesus being God. In other words, people do not remain silent or talk excessively about it. It seems like they talk enough when appropriate.
I think these two pieces of evidence prove an early consensus on the divinity of Jesus. For both Apostles and Paul…
Dear Ehrman, Could you please enlighten me.
Your blog is like a treasure.Thank you.
Given your various questions on this, I very much think you would benefit from my book How Jesus Became God. I discuass all this at length. THere I try to show that the discples of Jesus came to believe he was a divine being as soon as they came to think he had been raised from the dead and taken up into heaven. In Jewish (and Greek and Roman etc.) antiquity, anyone taken up to live in the divine realm was made divine. That’s what they originally thought happened.