(18 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...I sometimes get asked how my research in one book or another has led me to change my views about something important. Here is a post from four years ago today, where I explain how I changed my mind about something rather significant in the Gospels. Do Matthew, Mark, Luke consider Jesus to be God? I always thought the answer was a decided no (unlike the Gospel of John). In doing my research for my book How Jesus Became God, I ended up realizing I was probably wrong. Here’s how I explained it all back then.
********************************************************************************
This, I believe, will be my final post on an issue that changed my mind about while doing the research for How Jesus Became God. This last one is a big one – for me, at least. And it’s not one that I develop at length in the book in any one place, since it covers a span of material. Here’s the deal:
Until a year ago I would have said – and frequently did say, in the classroom, in public lectures, and in my writings – that Jesus is portrayed as God in the Gospel of John but not, definitely not, in the other Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I would point out that only in John did Jesus say such things as “Before Abraham, I am” (8:58; taking upon himself the name of God, as given to Moses in Exodus 3); his Jewish opponents knew full well what he was saying: they take up stones to stone him. Later he says “I and the Father are one” (10:30) Again, the Jews break out the stones. Later he tells his disciples, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (14:9). And in a later prayer to God he asks him to “glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world was created” (17:5).
The rest of this post is for members only. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN ALREADY!
Dr Ehrman: I think it is the same today. All people have a different idea as to what/who god is. I personally think all of this is superstition. 2000 years ago humanity had no clue that bacteria and other assorted creatures (what they called demons) were living inside them causing sickness,
Would you still agree there is a certain development in his devinety related to time in the various gospels?
In the gospel of John Jesus seems much more devine compared to Mark that was written probably 30 to 40 years earlier.
Also the miracles in John seem more spectaculair. Take the raising of Lazarus (that cannot be found in the Synoptics).
Yes indeed, I discuss all this in my book How Jesus Became God.
I think that your divine adoption theory is pretty weak. After all, I learned from reading your books that the appellation “Son of God” was applied to King David and his successors without anyone believing that David was a divine being. And wasn’t the entire nation of Israel called “Sons of God”? This entire idea of divine humans by birth or adoption in pagan mythology and in the Bible has always smacked of magical thinking of the type taught at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. It reduces the Bible to the level of comic book superheroes. It’s hard enough to handle such ridiculousness as talking snakes and zombies in Matthew. Doesn’t this all sound made up to you?
I’m afraid I don’t know what you’re asking. You might want to read my book to see the evidence that they saw him as something more than human.
But didn’t he become the Son of God, not God? Your title, How Jesus became God (capital G) is a bit misleading as I do not see that Matthew, Mark and Luke at least, got Jesus to God status. Adoption made a son legally the father’s (even above his own natural sons?) but didn’t make that son into the father. Aren’t the gospel writers (Mark anyway, at the baptism) saying Jesus got made God’s legal heir, entitled to use his power?
I enjoyed the book, btw, learned a LOT.
One of my points is that becoming divine means different things to different people. As you know from the book there were Jews who thought Moses had become divine and that people could be called God. That didn’t mean they were the one creator God.
About David and other Kings of Israel: many ancient peoples did believe their monarchs were divine beings, either in their lifetime or after death. We’re the people of Israel entirely immune to that notion? Would calling Jesus the heir to the throne of David in itself suggest he was, in that sense, divine?
Yes, the king was referred to as the “Son of God” (see 1 Sam. 7:14; Psalm 2), and sometimes even called “God.” I devote a discussion to this in my book How Jesus Became God.
It is absolutely true that ‘Son of God’ was an honorific used for people who had no divine attributes.
However, there’s a difference between other humans calling you a Son of God, and God himself doing so. Even if Mark’s Jesus only hears God’s voice in his head saying this, we’re left in no doubt that it really is God’s voice he heard. (I’m speaking in terms of the story being told, believe what you like about what really happened. I totally believe Dorothy went to Oz.)
Mark’s Jesus becomes divine when baptized by John, because God perceives some special quality in him that will make him a suitable messenger, to preach the coming of the Kingdom. And so he elevates him.
David was, in a sense, elevated by God–anointed by Samuel at God’s command. Messiah means anointed one. David was a prototype for the Messiah, but he was a flawed vessel, who committed many sins. That kingdom had ultimately fallen to outside enemies. (As all earthly kingdoms fall, sooner or later.)
Jesus is not meant to be an earthly king. He is the herald of God’s Kingdom, which will never fall. He has been elevated to a form of divinity to achieve this task. But he was born a mortal being. Chosen because he was worthy.
Jesus speaks words and things happen. Harry Potter speaks words and things happen. Both are stories. We know Jesus existed, and Harry Potter doesn’t, but the magic is equally part of a story being told. Why draw lines between the two stories? Both are ways of communicating important truths to the world. So were the pagan myths. And though I don’t believe Christianity was ‘stolen’ from pagan myths, I do know for a fact that from early in Christian history, even the most devout Christians have learned from those myths–while refusing to acknowledge they have their own. Myth doesn’t mean lie. Myths–the great ones–are all true.
So, one can be divine without being God or being equal with God. It reminds me of how some of my more mystical friends contend that God is within people and we are all part of God.
> some of my more mystical friends contend that God is within people and we are all part of God.
Hey, I’m a stone cold atheist and (provisional) materialistic reductionist. And I totally agree with that!
Don’t the Jews believe some version of what your mystical friends believe?
Excellent post! Isnt the concept of Jesus’ divinity as presented in the gospels different than the theological teaching of the Trinity? In other words, I have read where Judaism taught for instance that after his death Moses became a divine being but wasn’t himself God. So did the very early Church considered Jesus as a divine being, similar to Moses, but not God himself and the theological concept of a triune God developed later after the gospels were written?
Yes, the trinity is a much later development.
I’ll have to disagree that any of the four gospels portray Jesus as being divine or a third part of the god of the Bible.
If anyone is interested in further scholarly study and interpretation of this matter go to either of these websites:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity.html
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/
You will find every passage of scripture used by trinitarians debunked – including in the gospel of John.
I’m not arguing for a trinitarian view.
I was raised a trinitarian (nobody does it quite like us Catholics) and the thought never crossed my mind you were arguing that.
Very true. Trinitarianism came later. The gospels aren’t trying to preach that. That has been shoehorned in by later christians.
I’m currently reading “How Jesus Became God”. Is there something in that book you would radically change today?
Nope, I still subscribe to the whole thing!
Dr. Ehrman, the sense I get — from my attempt at reconstructing the historical Jesus — is that Jesus and his disciples, as Jewish men, would have certainly found the idea that Jesus was the literal incarnation of God to be as absurd, ridiculous and blasphemous as any Jew would have thought. I do think that’s unquestionable.
However! I do think that they found a clever work around their normal Jewish sensibilities, which allowed them to conceive of Jesus as partly God-ish, and that was by introducing the Holy Spirit into the mix. The Holy Spirit is literally a piece of God. It is the piece of God that Jewish writers, such as the composer of Proverbs, might call Chakhmah, or Wisdom. Greek Jewish philosophers, such as Philo, might call it Logos (hence the preamble of John). Apocalyptic Jews, such as Jesus and his disciples, might call it the Ruach ha-Qodesh, the “holy spirit” through which the ancient prophets spoke the word and will of God. (Note how the Logos and Holy Spirit started out as synonymous, but later became distinct, with the Logos only representing “the Son” in particular.)
Whatever it is, or whatever you might call it, Jesus and his disciples appear to have believed that this piece of the divine entered Jesus and took over his body, making him a vessel and tool for God (allowing him to perform miracles and such), and, therefore, partly God! This is what, I believe, that you, Dr. Ehrman, call the Separationist Christology, where the divine part of Jesus — i.e. the Holy Spirit, or Logos — entered Jesus at his baptism, and departed his body at the crucifixion. This is probably as close as we can ever say that Jesus’ followers saw him as “God” in the flesh. This is the Christology that is most consistant, I think, with all four Gospels and Paul. Anything more complex than that is the product of later Christological developments.
Brilliant.
Of course, being divine, that is “a” god, is not the same as being “the” God. Do you think the Gentiles who wrote the Gospels found it easier to see Jesus as “a” god as opposed to the Jews who acknowledged only one God? I’ve heard you suggest that Paul, a Jew, saw Jesus more as an exalted angel than being in fact God.
My view is that Paul thought Jesus started out as an angel, but then was exalted to the level of divinity. Moreover, this kind of view was perfectly acceptable within Judaism.
One way to think about it is that during the End Times battle, God’s army of angels — the Holy Host of the “LORD of Hosts” — would fight along side the army of the righteous Israelites, against Satan’s army of demons and wicked men. So, in a way, the exalted divine being of the post-resurrection Jesus can be thought of as something like the archangel Michael — that is, the commander-in-chief of the Holy Host, who will lead God’s Army on the battle field, and who afterwhich will rule the new Jerusalem and the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. This, in essence, is what most apocalyptic Jews viewed as the so-called “Son of Man” figure of Daniel’s prophecy, who comes on a cloud from heaven, leading the Holy Host of God. Jesus’ disciples seem to have thought that after his death and resurrection Jesus was exalted to this role, which he would perform at his return.
Dr. Ehrman, you lifted my spirits with this post: 1) you describe what you once thought, and why; 2) you describe how your thinking changed, and why; 3) you reveal yourself willing to reconsider the evidence and to try different approaches to understanding it; and 4) throughout you provide us with a fine example of scholarly humility. Such is the very heart of sound scholarship. Thank you, and may your tribe increase!
There is a typo in the paragraph after the sentence in red colour. John, at beginning, shoud be Jesus is portrayed as divine in John.
I also do not agree with John that Jesus existed in heaven before he was born. There was no need for him to be there. Jesus came into existence when born on earth.
Professor, I still get hung up on the apparent fact that Paul, writing so many years before the Synoptics and so few years after Jesus’ death, was exposed to a theology so much more “advanced” (if I may be allowed to use that word to describe a “higher” Christology) than what appears in Mark, Matthew and Luke. Even the hymns to Christ that Paul recites are more “divine” than what we see in the Synoptics so many years later. Is the explanation simply that the authors of the later writings were the products of different Jesus or Christ communities than was Paul, and thus reflected the state of Christology to which they were exposed? Or, leaving aside the way it may have matured as we move through the genuine Pauline epistles, was Paul effectively the author of the “higher’ Christology that he was preaching?
I think the problem is imagining that theological thinking advanced in a linear fashion — that at one point all Christians believed X then they believed Y and then they believed Z, so that if you find a Christian believing Y then that one must have been living *prior* to one beliving Z. I don’t think it worked that way. High christologies developed in different times and places, not all at once everywhere. Paul had a high one; Mark had a low one; but that doesn’t give us a reliable key to their relative dates.
Of course, the way I solve this problem is by suggesting that proto-Mark (the very first version of Mark), was written in the 40s CE.
Still, that Paul came so soon after Jesus and still had such a highly developed Christology is baffling. If he got it from any who came before him, even closer to Jesus’ death, that would be even more baffling. One way to render the development a little less odd would be to de-emphasize Acts because of its historical unreliability and to realize that Paul might have taken years to develop his ideas after his initial vision….perhaps in Arabia. I wonder what the folk religions in Arabia believed that might have influenced Paul (if he intermingled with them). Also, that amalgam of Hellenistic and Hebraic thought that Maccoby argues for would have had more time to develop.
I discuss some of that in my book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene (six chapters on Paul).
“Here he is not born of a virgin and he is not adopted by God at the baptism (neither event is narrated in John – and could not be, given, John’s Christology).”
Whilst this is technically true (the narration of Jesus’ baptism is absent from John), could it not be argued that John carefully arranges his opening chapter where he suggests the logos became flesh (adoption) at the moment of baptism?
1. The opening 5 verses describe the divine, nameless Word of God which is *with* God (presumably in heaven).
2. The following 4 verses describe John and his mission.
3. Then, interestingly, v12-13 describe how God adopts his children through ‘power’.
4. It is not until we get to v14, a whole 8 verses after the introduction of John the Baptist, where we read the Word became flesh.
5. *Immediately* after that we have the Baptist’s excited proclamation “this was he”!
It’s as if the John’s gospel is describing *how* and *when* the Word became flesh in the following order:
1. Heavenly Word with God
2. John sent baptising
3. God adopts his children with power
4. Heavenly Word becomes earthly flesh
5. The Baptist proclaims Jesus as “the one”
I think it is key that 1:14 and 18 bring the prologue to a conclusion. Only then do we get an actual referent co the baptism. The mentions of John in the prologue are prose insertions into an original poetic construction, meant to clarify the relationship between Jesus and John for readers who either wondered or who had the wrong understanding.
Are you suggesting that the prologue may have been added by someone other than John?
No, I think the author used a previously existing piece (poem) that he edited a bit as his “prologue.”
If the synoptic evangelists intend to portray Jesus as divine via reporting his healing acts, exorcisms, raising the dead and pronouncing forgiveness, then – assuming these actions originate from the historical Jesus (of course, reading the texts as historians, the reader needs not think the historical Jesus performed actual miracles, simply that his actions were understood by the bystanders as miracles) – surely one would have to accept that the historical Jesus thought he was divine? How can we avoid this conclusion yet accepting the evangelists thought he was divine?
I don’t assume these actions originated with the historical Jesus.
I thought most scholars accept, given the copious reported incidents, the historical Jesus performed actions which were interrupted by his followers to be exorcisms and healings. Also your study on the historical Jesus reinterprets exorcisms and healings ministry via the lens of Jesus as an apocalytic prophet (in the kingdom to come, there will be no demons, no sickness).
Yes, they do. I don’t, however.
Maybe I am missing something here. In “Jesus apocalyptic prophet of the millennium” (1999), you argued, “There can be little doubt that whether or not there exist supernatural evil spirits…Jesus was widely thought to be able to cast them out…Jesus’ exorcisms are among the best-attested deeds of the Gospel traditions…Much the same can be said about Jesus’ reputation as a healer…Whatever you think about the philosophical possibility of miracles, it’s clear that Jesus was widely reputed to have done them.”
I just want to check if the above remains your position, or whether via research subsequent to 1999, you have altered your position, just as you have altered your view on Synoptic evangelists’ view of Jesus’ divinity in light of new arguments. Much of my views on the New Testament have been shaped by your work, so if your views change, I may have to re-evaluate my own views!
Yes, that’s right “he was widely thought” to have done these things. That does not mean, however, that he did them.
Maybe he would have thought of himself as powered by God, like Moses and Elijah doing their clever tricks?
Perhaps the pure humanity of Jesus and a life based on love, harmony, and peace, as opposed to the usual hatreds, selfishness, greed, and warring madness, were not enough to carry the day, nor cause the triumph. Not surprising given a low level of civility and morality of that era, not that the prevailing level today is much higher. So to make the case that Jesus lived for a noble purpose, the authors had to include the superstitious miracle stories, miracle powers, virgin birth, bodily resurrection, and hence deification?
I think there’s something definitely to that.
The Gospel of John’s christology is very confusing to me, if Jesus was both *with* God yet also *was* God himself, don’t you have 2 Gods there? If Jesus is the word of god who in some sense was a god himself, Who is that “other” god that he is with?
Welcome to the joys of Christian theology! It gets more confusing as time moves on.
What is even more confusing (to me) is John 10:31-36 where Jesus appears to suggest all Jews share in the divinity of God:
“Jesus answered, ‘Is it not written in your law, “I said, you are gods”? If those to whom the word of God came were called “gods”—and the scripture cannot be annulled— can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, “I am God’s Son”?”
Here Jesus seems to be rolling back from an explicit claim over personal divinity (v 30: “The Father and I are one.”) and argues that all Jews share a common divinity. I’ve got an odd feeling I’ve asked this before – so forgive me if I have – but how do you understand what John’s Jesus is saying here?
I’ve never been completely sure. It *seems* like Jesus is just trying to win an argument!
John’s entire gospel has little, if anything, to do with the historical Jesus. John’s Jesus is a pompous, Jew-hating Greek philosopher.
Don’t think I agree with that. He certainly doesn’t have any philosophical training, even if he is vaguely familiar with some popular versions of philosophical ideas.
I’d assume John himself had conflicting ideas, and I’ve never met anyone who didn’t, so that tracks.
It’s references like this in the gospels that probably led to the notion prevalent throughout the early church that the goal of Christian faith was not for God to become man, but for men and women to become God.
That may, in fact, be something like what Jesus imagined the Kingdom would be.
I’m sure I won’t be the only one to ask, but is Matthew basically in the same camp as Luke on this question?
Given the arguments about whether Matthew or Luke came first, it would be interesting to see if Matthew’s view of Jesus’ divinity was somewhere in-between Mark and Luke’s.
I realize this is a change in POV for you, but I think many Christians would say you’re still denying the divinity of Jesus in the synoptics by calling him a ‘God-man.’
Anyway, there’s only one Godman–or possibly two.
https://www.google.com/search?q=godman+the+hero+with+omnipotent+powers&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR-eCxwLjaAhXFq1kKHQCrDKoQsAQILQ&biw=1608&bih=939#imgrc=mNNukJvkjsjibM:
I think it is standard theological language to refer to Christ as a God-man; for orthodox thinking he is fully divine adn fully human at one and the same time.
Damn. I shouldn’t have let my whimsy type out the second part of my post. I just love those God-Man comics so much.
And nobody else thought to ask about Matthew.
Is Matthew’s perspective going to be in a follow-up article?
My sense is that the Virgin Birth makes jesus divine for Matthew as well.
Point of order–in Luke, Mary’s cousin Elizabeth, married, clearly not a virgin, but past child-bearing years, and barren, also conceives through the Holy Spirit. That child is John the Baptist. This story exists nowhere else. It seems to be Luke’s contribution.
Did Luke also believe John was the begotten Son of God, a divine being?
This would, perhaps, solve the problem of Jesus’ baptism. The Son of God was not baptized by a man, but rather by a fellow Son of God. All in the family, you know?
With Matthew, it seems fairly conservative–like something not unlike the miraculous births of the Old Testament. There are five such births, I believe, including Isaac and Samson.
Luke seems almost pagan–“God has found favor with you.” He wants to make it clear that yes, this has happened before, but this is different, special.
This may be why it was so important to emphasize Mary’s virginity. Even though it’s arguably more miraculous for a 90 year old woman to give birth.
No, Elizabeth is not a virgin. She, like OT barren women, is allowed to become pregnant well past her time.
I understand that distinction, but a miraculous birth is a miraculous birth is a miraculous birth. And miraculous births give rise to exceptional people, clothed in a form of divinity.
It wasn’t such a huge leap they were making. And seriously, who believes Elizabeth was having marital sex at 90? Well, I don’t believe that particular Elizabeth existed, but that’s neither here nor there.
It’s a big difference. Many older women thought to be unable to conceive have conceived. There is, though, only one virgin birth. The former was not thought to make a child divine. The latter was.
In the story of the Transfiguration, Jesus interacts with Moses and Elijah as equals, with no sense that they are in any way subordinate to him. Jesus was sometimes believed, in the gospels to be either Elijah or John the Baptist returned. Jesus says no man born of woman (as he was) is greater than John the Baptist.
These may be memories of things he actually said (I’m not suggesting the Transfiguration literally occurred, but he probably did refer to both prophets, and definitely to John), and I would suggest that one reason for the Virgin Birth story to take hold was to distinguish Jesus from other great prophets who he himself never claimed to be superior to.
Mark was content with the adoption story, which possibly stems from a personal religious experience at his baptism that he shared with his disciples. Mark likes to get his points across by allusion.
But when that subtler version of the story failed to convince most people (and why would it? anybody can hear a voice inside his or her head, and as you say, the earlier prophets had reputedly worked equally impressive miracles), the temptation to keep upping the ante would be hard to resist.
And, of course, the problem with saying a young unmarried woman’s pregnancy is a miracle is that there’s nothing miraculous about it, unless you assume the divine explanation for her pregnancy is true–many cultures have believed in such births, I understand.
Whereas, a 90 year old woman giving birth under any circumstances would be at the very least a medical miracle.
Re: (In Luke Jesus did not exist *prior* to that conception to the virgin – his conception is when he came into existence). For John, Jesus was a pre-existent divine being – the Word of God who was both with God and was God at the beginning of all things – who became a human.
With a metaphysical understanding of the nature of reality, it is assumed that the man “Jesus” comes into being at time of his physical birth, but the “I” quality, the awareness, is eternal and exists before the foundation of the world. This would be true of anyone, not only Jesus.
I think also the idea of being “conceived by a virgin” should be construed as the mother was a virgin at time of marriage or right up to the time of conception. The supernatural aspects would be added later by those having a vested interest in making demonstration that their supernatural hero can whip your supernatural hero.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
If this is the case, how would the Synoptic authors reconcile there being two “Gods”?
If Jesus wasn’t ALWAYS God (as according to John), then wouldn’t it be plausible to say that at a point of time a second God became existent?
One of the gods was subordinate to the Other. That happened sometimes in Judaism as well.
Isn’t the idea of there being more than one god against the basic tenent of Judaism? Surely the Synoptic writers would of been aware of this, since in the Synptics gospels Jesus himself said there is only one God.
You would think so, but it’s actually not that simple. There are other divine beings of lesser power and glory.
I wonder how the Bishops at Nicea reconciled thier new creed to Mark and Luke or did they rely only on John? How were the adopted GodSon of Mark and the demigod of Luke the “same substance” as El Shadai? If they spoke Greek or Latin (probably both) I would think thier demigod concept would be more Greek in which Hercules was powerful but certainly not Zues….
Yes, they definitely appealed to all the Gospels, just as modern theologians do.
Bart, in your esteemed opinion, when do you think Paul’s Jesus became God? Was it at conception, birth, baptism, transfiguration, his death, was he pre-existing, or none of the above?
At his resurrection/exaltation.
I phrased the question wrong and actually meant to ask about the status of Jesus as son of God, but I’ll assume you’d give the same answer.
My reading – Paul’s son of God Jesus is pre-existing:
Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4: 2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:6-11; and later Paul followers in Col 1:15-20. Also, Paul’s mystery revelations such as Rom 16:25-27 indicate pre-existence.
I explain my view of Paul’s christology fairly fully in my book How jesus Became God.
That’s a really interesting response, Bart.
How do you account for the hymn Paul reproduced with approval in Phil 2:5-11? Especially v6-7?
[NRSV]
“who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
7 but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born [I contest the translation ‘born’] in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
8 he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.”
Here Paul seems to suggest the pre-existence of Christ who “emptied himself” of his divinity, yet retained his identity as Christ.
I agree with you that Paul’s Christ was made divine (again?) at his resurrection, but how would you answer those who point to the Philippian Hymn as an example where Paul sides with those who argue pre-existence?
A lot of your questions I deal with in my book How Jesus Became God. Yes, for Paul Jesus did pre-exist. But he was “hyper-exalted” to be given the divine name above all names at the resurrectin-exaltation. I give a detailed explanation in the book.
I think I’m going to do it Bart – I’m going to buy your book.
Pretty soon, I’ll need a dedicated shelf for you as they’re racking up quickly!
Do I get a degree in Ehrmanism if I read all of them? 😀
In John 20::15-17, Jesus, speaking to Mary, tells her not to touch him because he has not yet ascended to His Father and God, and to the disciples Father And God, therefore I do not believe he meant to imply that he is God.
I am not a Greek scholar, but the way that I have looked at John 1:1 is that the “Logos” are the sayings of God and they embody and idea or a plan which pertains to God giving us His uniquely begotten Son, and by this “Logos” God has revealed His character to humanity. I do not believe that this indicates that Jesus existed as a sentient being with God from the beginning, but that he was foreordained (1 Peter 1:17-20). When he states “before Abraham was ‘Iam” in John he means “I exist” as someone who was foreordained. In Exodus 3 God states “I am that I am”, not just simply “I am”. God does not tell us to whom he was speaking in Genesis 1:26, but I believe that he was speaking to the angels because of Job 38. He is one with the Father in the spirit (John 17:20-23). The statement that he makes about having had glory with the Father before the world was is that this was fore-seen as such from the beginning. It was a done deal. (John 17 :24, may explain, also Rev. 13:8)
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think evangelical scholars are just off in left field to think that the evidence could be weighed in such a way to see Jesus as “God”? I know you would weigh the evidence more in favor of a simple divine god-man, but is it too far fetched to see the synoptics portraying Jesus as the great “I Am”?
Best
I’m not sure what you’re asking. Are you asking whether I myself personally think Jesus is God? No, I absolutely do not. Or are you asking if the Synoptics have the same view of Christ as John has. Again, absolutely not.
I have been a fan of your scholarship over the last decade, and so I am very aware of your personal and historical views of Jesus as God. LOL!
What I’m asking is if you think that evangelical views of Jesus as “The God” would be on the level of something like denying the Holocaust? Or are they simply weighing evidence differently? When someone sees a glass of water filled halfway, one scholar may say half full and another half empty. They are seeing the same evidence differently?
Thanks
I would say they are weighing the evidence differently and often simply overlooking the evidence because of views they bring *to* the evidence.
How does this relate to the Trinity? How do explain the Trinity?
I discuss that at length in my book How jesus Became God. It would be much too difficult to do in a brief comment on a blog!
Why did my preacher just say Messiah/Savior means metanoya? I don’t quite remember you telling us that. What word do you think he’s saying? He also said we get the word metamorphosis from metanoya?
Dr. Michael B. Brown is leaving Marble Collegiate Church, New York and now he’s giving his farewell service sermon.
Maybe you misunderstood him? Metanoia means “repentance.”
Funny enough:
“Messiah” and “Savior” in Hebrew are too different words that just happen to sound very similar.
Messiah comes from the Hebrew “moshiach” (משיח) which means “anointed,” as with oil. Such anointment was standard practice for the coronation of Israelite kings and high priests.
The Hebrew word for “savior,” on the other hand, is actually “moshi’a” (מושיע) which means one who helps or saves.
The only real difference between the two words, in classical Biblical Hebrew, is that the last syllable is aspirated in the former, and unaspirated in the latter.
This is true if one follows the Ashkenazi pronunciation of Central and Eastern European Jews, but not true of Sephardic pronunciation of Mediterranean Jews, including Israel, where Messiah is pronounced as mashiach. Just a fun fact for anyone learning Hebrew
Well, for starters, modern Israeli Hebrew tends to follow Ashkenazi pronuncations more often than Sephardic.
Moreover, the distinction between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Hebrew didn’t exist in Jesus’ time (which is why I described the Chet as an aspirated pharyngeal fricative, where Ayin is an unaspirated pharyngeal fricative; in modern Hebrew, a Chet is articulated as an uvular fricative, like Khaf). Assuming that the closest possible example of how Jesus and his disciples pronouned Hebrew is the Tiberian Hebrew of the Mishnah (ca. 2nd century), then the qamatz in מָשִׁיחַ would have been pronouned somewhat in between a short /o/ and a long /a/ — kind of like how someone from New Jersey would pronounce the ‘o’ in New York. (In modern Hebrew, an /a/ pronuncation would be the qamatz gadol, while an /o/ pronunciation would be the qamatz qatan.)
I’ve never been to Israel, just tried to make sense of different pronunciations I hear in the US and the biblical Hebrew I learned in Dutch. I learned an ‘a’ sound for מָשִׁיחַ, which this pronunciation guide gives for both biblical and modern Hebrew: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%97
Is that not really correct? Would most Israelis read מָשִׁיחַ in the TNK with an ‘o’ sound? Likewise in modern Hebrew pronunciation in Israel?
Of course, none of that matters if you’re trying to reconstruct Jesus’ own pronunciation.
How do the synoptics portray Jesus as “more than human” ?
I don’t see Jesus (Mark 1) hearing/realizing himself to “be God’s son”, that “God loves him”, and that “God is pleased with him” implies Jesus is “more than human” . Do you?
it does not imply all other humans are not likewise loved by God, are not God’s children, nor are unpleasing to God. Maybe, and I think probably, Jesus took his own epiphany at his baptism, to teach his disciples they are also God’s children, are also loved by God and also pleasing to Him, ie that they should realize their own DIVINE character and their own relationship with God as he had.
Now considering Lk 1:35 Gabriels words “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the one to be born will be called the Son of God.” I suppose implies Jesus is conceived with God’s power and purpose but does not imply Jesus was born without a physical father (unless we are conditioned by 2000 years of reference to the Virgin Mary). Note the man’s home whom Mary visits in following couple verses, and whose home she is probably kicked out of when it apparent she is to be an unwed mother.
If Jesus became divine at his baptism for Mark, did he lose his divinity on the cross when he felt God had forsaken him?
Not for Mark, no.
Mark may have thought Jesus became divine, but he doesn’t seem to have portrayed his Jesus as knowing it. If the theme of his gospel is that no-one could see it, Jesus doesn’t seem to be in on it either.
Mark doesn’t think Jesus became (part of?) THE god, does he? Just kind of generally divine?
I’m not sure what becoming part of the God would mean. He is the Son of God for Mark, the one made divine probalby at his baptism.
And I’m not totally convinced that Mark thinks adoption should mean one becomes divine either, by his portrayal of Jesus. All Christians are adopted by God, per Paul, but no,indication that they become divine. Were there different views of what adoption by God meant? And miracle working isn’t a sign of divinity either. Jews were fairly accepting of this skill by godly men without thinking they were divine in some way. And Mark doesn’t indicate that resurrection was a sign of divinity, does he? more like a sign of God’s power rather than anything to do,with the proof Jesus was divine.
What a hot mess Christianity was…is…
Name me any belief system–theistic or secular–that isn’t. Beliefs evolve and grow, because none of them are perfectly rational, but we want them to be. So we keep tinkering to try and make them perfect. And they just keep getting more complex.
Bart has explained that in the Roman world, the notion of divine adoption was widespread (as was the idea of gods impregnating mortal women).
When Christians become adopted by God, they are doing so through Jesus–they are at the very least following his example, treading a path he broke for them.
So by being the first, even if you don’t believe he’s literally God’s son, he gains a special status that those who follow him don’t have. To this day, we attach a special significance to being first at something (and argue over who is to receive that honor).
It is, however, a fact that early Christians did believe they could become divine, for centuries after the crucifixion. The line is not all that strongly drawn then between the human and supernatural world. That came later.
“What a hot mess Christianity was…is…”
and is to come….. 😉
John 17.3 seems to separate Jesus from God. Does this conflict with John’s overarching christology? Is it original to John?
Yes, it is almost certainly original to John. Thorughout John, even when Christ is said to have a standing equal to God, he is understood to be a being distinct from God (already from the outset: The word was *with* God and the word *was* God).
Hi professor Ehrman, did you hear anything about this new discovery of first-century Gospel of Mark.
what is your comment on it? thanks
http://www.assistnews.net/index.php/component/k2/item/3744-dr-gary-habermas-confirms-recent-tests-on-a-gospel-of-mark-fragment-possibly-provides-the-oldest-new-testament-manuscript-evidence-available
It appears to be bogus, according to the people actually connected with it. Moreover, the whole apologetic claim is bogus. To say that the fragment NOW PROVIDES PROOF that the Gospel of Mark was circulated in teh first century — whom, exactly is this “proof” refuting??? It isn’t confirming anything that everyone already doesn’t think. Who in the universe doesn’t think that Mark’s Gospel was circulating in the first century? So if this fragment were found to be authentic, whose mind would it change? No one’s!
Professor Ehrman I am struggling to see how the words ” “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” show anything other than a father talking to his son. Could you explain how you read an adoption event into this? Thanks
The words are a quotaiton of Psalm 2, which is normally taken to be a “coronation” psalm, spoken to the king of Israel at his coronation ceremony. That is when God declares the king to be his “son” — that is, his “adopted” full representative on earth. When applied to Jesus, it would be at his moment of adoption as God’s “son”
“only in John did Jesus say such things as “Before Abraham, I am” (8:58; taking upon himself the name of God, as given to Moses in Exodus 3)”
Bart, I don’t think John 8:58 is a claim on God’s name. John uses the term “ἐγὼ εἰμί”, and most bibles excitedly cross-reference you to Exodus 3:14, but “ἐγὼ εἰμί” isn’t God’s name in Greek. Rather, it’s “ὁ ὤν”. In Ex 3:14 it says “Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν”, that is, “I am THE ONE WHO IS”. It’s the second part of this sentence that is the name part, which is why it goes on to say, “Thus you will say to the sons of Israel, ὁ ὤν has sent me to you.”
This usage is repeated in Revelation when referring to the one who is, was, and is to come – “ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος.”
Hi Bart, any thoughts on this? (sorry if I’m nagging, but it’s a point you make in your books, and I haven’t seen this ever explained)
ο ων is the present active participle masculine nominative singular for ειναι; ειμι is the present active indicative first person singular form for the same verb. εγω ειμι is the emphatic form. It sounds like you know all that. But if you want to say “I am the one who is” you wouldn’t normally (or ever?) say εγω ο ων but εγω ειμι.
But they did use ‘ὁ ὤν’ in Ex 3:14 LXX to say “I am the one who is”. There it says “Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν”, “I am the ‘being-one'”.
And then it’s not Ἐγώ εἰμι that sent him, but Ὁ ὢν. καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς. “The ‘being-one’ sent you.” I think ‘Ὁ ὢν’ is the name part, that’s used in Ex 3:14 to stand in for YHWH.
Ἐγώ εἰμι, as used in John 8:58, would generally be translated “I am he/she” or “It is I”.
2 Kgdms 15:26 – καὶ ἐὰν εἴπῃ οὕτως Οὐκ ἠθέληκα ἐν σοί, ἰδοὺ ἐγώ εἰμι.
Gospel of Thomas 19:4 – σὺ εἶ μήτηρ τοῦ παιδίου τούτου; ἡ δὲ εἶπεν· ἐγώ εἰμι.
Judges 11:37 – πορεύσομαι καὶ καταβήσομαι ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη, καὶ κλαύσομαι ἐπὶ τὰ παρθένιά μου, ἐγώ εἰμι καὶ αἱ συνεταιρίδες μου
John 8:58 εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί. (I’m not sure what he’s trying to say, but I don’t think he’s referring to Ex 3:14. Perhaps it’s merely a claim to pre-existence.)
(sorry, small correction, in Ex 3:14 Ὁ ὢν stands for אהיה not יהוה, same name different grammatical form)
Whatever it was, they took him to be claiming to be god and tried to stone him!
why does everybody capitalize “Son” when writing “Son of God”?
It’s “son of god” or “SON OF GOD” – whatever – but there are no caps in Hebrew or Greek.
It’s saying “son of God”. A *relationship*. Not a title.
It’s a title, and titles (Mr. Dr. Prof. etc.) are capitalized. (there also isn’t punctuation in Hebrew or Greek, but we certainly punctuate our Bible translations)
Hi Dr Ehrman,
Even though John’s christology is higher in status relative to the other synaptic gospels, would you still agree with the idea there are many verses in the gospel of John that doesn’t reaffirm Jesus’ equality with God Himself?
For example,
4:21-24 says the people should worship the father (with Jesus differentiating himself as the messiah instead).
5:37 – No one has seen the father (as Jesus is talking to the crowd). Therefore Jesus isn’t the Father.
6:65 – Belief in Jesus is only dependent on the Father, not through Jesus.
12:47-50 – Jesus won’t judge the people if they reject his words but it will be God that will judge the people.
20:17 – Jesus blatantly admits that he has a God, the same God as the people.
10:34-36 – These verses are very interesting as the Jews are accusing Jesus of blaspheming when claiming to be God in 10:30. But Jesus then quotes Psalm 82:6 which says that judges were called ‘Gods’ and therefore Jesus is trying to say he is like a ‘God’ in the Psalm sense but not in the literal Yahweh sense.
Therefore could you not make the argument that the gospel of John paints a very human like Jesus with some divinity but far from equality with God the Father?
Yes indeed! That’s the whole basis for my understanding of John — different portions come from different sources with different Christologies.
So how can the later Christians get the idea so wrong? They claim as per the Trinity that Jesus is co equal to God when there’s hardly any verses or evidences in the New Testament to reaffirm this position. Isn’t it obvious that Jesus is not Yahweh?
I’m not saying the view is wrong. I’m saying it is not the original view of the earliest Christians.
Could the references in the Syoptics that lead you to believe Jesus was considered divine be later edits, like the references you cite in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture?
There’s no manuscript evidence to suggest they are. They appear to be original to the text.
I just came across this quote in my notes. I can’t remember if I plucked it from one of your books or not. I have an inkling it’s in Robin Lane Fox’s Epic History of Greece & Rome.
If God wishes that no god be worshiped, why do you worship his bastard Son? Neither Paul nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark dared to call Jesus ‘God’.
~Emperor Julian the Apostate, Contra Galilaeos
I wonder if a Unitarian could rectify this interpretation with their own. Would being divine, like you mention Moses being believed, being contrary to Unitarianism?
Do you mean would Unitarians accept the idea that Jesus was God? Probably not.