Loading...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).
Well, I disagree here.
Every time the Jewish scribes approached him and accused Jesus of something, they were portrayed as WRONG or mistaken. Only by saying “they have a point” can we assume that Jesus was claiming divinity.
He in no way said or implied that he was Divine or partially Divine or anything other than a fully human man, nor did the 12 Apostles in Acts, nor did even Paul, for whom it would have been a great benefit in Pagan Roman towns to have had a Demigod as a Dying/Rising savior! I continue to believe the “I Am” statement was either poorly translated from the (lost) originals (and it’s not the only place in the Gospels where the wording seems “off”) or was simply a foil created by the writer to show that Jesus was being misunderstood.
The idea of adoption, even as you now accept it, does not necessarily imply “divinity” either. Jesus was adopted uniquely as a “Son”, for sure (as your excellent analysis shows, in Orthodox Corruptions, this simple Adoption to a special Sonship was covered up by the early church) but he was anointed just as David and the prophets had been anointed. And Son of Man/Son of God language in the Gospels do not imply Divinity, but implies full HUMANITY, if anything.
The Fourth Gospel, of course, does make implications of Divinity, esp. in the first “Hymn” (that, if I’m not mistaken, seems to be a later addition) but even there, “John” ironically goes even further than the Synopics to show that Jesus could ONLY act because God gave him the power to act, that he is a mere man, and that he is completely subordinated to God. Nowhere in the Gospels is this more strongly stated, ironically, than in John, where the Nicene definition – which attempts to merge Jesus into the Father, Yahweh – kind of falls flat.
In Luke 20, Jesus gives a dialogue that would support his pre-existence.
“But he said to them, “How can they say that the Christ is David’s son? For David himself says in the Book of Psalms, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.’ David thus calls him Lord; so how is he his son?” vv.41-44
So, he isn’t just a man there. No man pre-exists, especially the king messiah. Moshiach ben David/messiah son of David is simply and only a man according to the Tanakh/Hebrew Bible. He is nothing more, he doesn’t come down from heaven, he doesn’t pre-exist, he isn’t God’s son.
I don’t know how the gospel writers could have been Jews. Matthew’s author didn’t even know Hebrew, because he mistranslates the Tanakh.
Paul claims that Jesus was the “firstborn of all creation” in Colossians 1, so there is no way he thought Jesus was only a man.
“Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother…He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities–all things were created through him and for him.He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” Colossians 1:1, 15-20
Paul, who was supposedly not just a Jew, but a Pharisee, no less, taught things that Jews have never believed. The Hebrew prophets never spoke of these things, this son of God who is the “image of the invisible God”, who supposedly created all things. I think Paul was heavily influenced by Hellenistic and Platonic belief systems, and I have to venture to guess he was never a Pharisee, despite his claims.
Paul probably didn’t write Colossians. If you want the *full* evidence, see my book Forgery and Counterforgery.
Luke 20 is usually thought to be understood (by Luke) as a reference to what *would* happen at the resurrection, not something that had already happened before Jesus’ birth. And most critical scholars doubt if Paul wrote Colossians. You might look at my book Forged for this. (But I agree, Paul thought Jesus was divine)
Dr. Ehrman, you used to look at the same evidence and say the earliest Christians believed Jesus to be fully human, but adopted by God in a special way as his “son.” And that it was commonly understood that this either happened at his baptism (as the Ebionites believed, backed up by the corrupted Luke 3:22 (variant in D) originally reflecting the language of Psalm 2:9) or, as in Paul’s letters, at his resurrection and ascension.
Paul’s letters (the authentic ones) like Acts, are all replete with references to Jesus being a “man” chosen by God. As your own books note, every introduction to a Pauline reinforces this.
My question (again) What changed? One newly interpreted line cannot possibly reverse all your thinking “Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” (Adoptionist chapter.) I’m no scholar, but how come there was such dissension about the Divinity of Christ through the 4th Century when Paul supposedly made it clear in the First that Jesus was somehow ‘Divine?’
You apparently haven’t read my book?
I ve a question why does no gospel say anything about jesus life before the age of thirty i mean jesus lived for 30 years among people if god lives with us 30 years without helping people or saying something how could this happen all gospels talk about three years and ignore the other 30
There are stories of his early life (not many!) in both Matthew and Luke. The authors, and their audiences, were far more interested in his ministry, death, and resurrection.
Off-topic, but something I’ve been wondering about… Say Jesus had been arrested a day later, and Pilate had already left to go back to Caesarea. Would Jesus have been sent to Caesarea for trial and execution, none of it taking place in Jerusalem? In other words, was the very public spectacle of crucifixion *in Jerusalem* – for an offense against the State, not “normal” criminal activity – possible *only* when the Prefect was there?
Good question. Well, he certainly would not have been crucified without a Roman sentence. So it’s a good question — I don’t really know. I suppose he *would* have been sent to Pilate elsewhere.
“Being made the very Son of God who can heal, cast out demons, raise the dead, pronounce divine forgiveness…” Do you now combine your previous apocalyptic reading of Jesus’ healing, exorcisms, raising the dead etc. together with your divine reading? That is, these passages demonstrate in the imminent kingdom of God, there will be no sickness, no demons, no death – AND Jesus is displaying his divine attributes ahead of time?
I don’t think Jesus really healed the sick or raised the dead. I’m saying the Synoptic authors *believed* he did, and that this belief involved both the belief that the Kingdom was beginning to manifest itself and that it was because the divine king was already in their midst.
Yes, I was asking about the synoptic authors’ beliefs, not whether their beliefs are correct.
And yet, Jesus consistently notes that his authority comes from God (noting always that he distinguishes between himself and God, as when he is questioned about the commandments and says he’s not “good” like God, who is alone Good.) He has no authority to let someone sit on God’s right hand (Matt. 20:23.)
Oddly, John stresses this, and Jesus’ complete subordination to God, even MORE than the Synoptics, with Jesus going out of his way to say his abilities to heal or do other miracles of healing come from God, not himself, even saying, “My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me” (John 7:16) and clearly distinguishing himself from the “one true God” (17:3.) This is not the language of a God or someone who thinks he’s Divine, or even semi-Divine. I see a BESTOWAL of Divine power here, from God, but not equality in the Nicene sense.
Where am I wrong, Dr. Ehrman?
Again, you may want to read my book.
Thanks. I’ll get right on that. Until then, this is not an enlightening response.
“For Luke, Jesus was conceived by God and so was literally God’s son, from the point of his conception. (In Luke Jesus did not exist *prior* to that conception to the virgin – his conception is when he came into existence).”
Do you see Matthew as the same as Luke on this point?
Yes, but implicitly rather than explicitly.
Although I encountered something interesting in the reading this Easter Sunday in the RC church. Acts 10:38, supposed to be written by the author of Luke sounds very adoptionist to me:
“how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him”
Hardly sounds like one of three persons
Yup, it represents an early Christological view.
Good post especially the arguments about miracles and the forgiveness of sins not being evidence of divinity. Thanks.
Proff you think any gospels writers saw him as an immaterial, spaceless, timeless being who is all knowing, can do anything logically possible, is perfect in every way and the initial cause of reality itself? i ask this seriously because this is what i (and most people) think of when we talk about god.
I don’t think they tell us enough for us to know. My sense is that most ancient people do *not* think of God as immatierial, spaceless, and timeless.
These posts about how, in writing this book, you changed your mind about various issues have been very interesting and quite a contrast to all those who are convinced that they know the truth and, hence, have never changed their minds about anything. Have the discussions and reviews, and even the critical book, that followed the publication of your book, changed your mind about anything?
Not yet! But the responses are just starting.
I’ve read your book, but it was a lot to absorb. So by now, I’m not clear on this point.
Do you make a distinction between the authors of the Synoptics believing Jesus was “divine” and believing he was “God”? Are you saying they believed he was “God, in a sense” if they believed he was the “Son of Man” or the “adopted Son of God”?
I just reread the above, and I’m still not sure. Sometimes you say “divine being,” and sometimes you say “God.” But you’ve told us that in the ancient world, angels were considered “divine.”
What I try to map out is that being God meant something different to most people in antiquity from what it means to most people today. There were lots of divine beings — gods — and for Christians, Jesus was one of them. Eventually he wasn’t merely a lower form of divinity (a lesser god) but fully equal with the one God of Israel himself.
I’ll add another question here. Do scholars agree on about what percentage of the population of the “Holy Land” in Jesus’s day had apocalyptic beliefs…before his preaching?
If we assume he wasn’t performing miracles, it must have been his preaching that attracted however many people he did attract. But was he converting them to the idea of the coming “Kingdom”? Or did they already believe in it, and was he urging them to live in accordance with God’s will in order to show God that many of His people were worthy, and speed its coming?
No, I’m afraid we don’t know percentages. And I’m not sure *how* large a following he actually had during his ministry. Whoever was following him agreed with his message of the coming kingdom and the need to prepare for it.
I suppose I’m not the only person who has had problems trying to understand what Paul really believed, but if I recall correctly in your book you were of the opinion that Paul believed in a high Christology by citing early creeds, poems, and hymns reflecting Jesus as a preexisting divine being. But in his letter to the Romans, Paul clearly seems to be in the Adoptionist camp. Did he change his mind? Or were the early Roman Christians Adoptionists and was this Paul’s attempt to be accepted by expressing like beliefs?
Some creeds had one Christology and others had another; Paul quoted the various ones depending on what his immediate purpose was.
Of course not all “Paul” was written by “Paul.” Romans was early and Adoptionist, right? So what did the later authentic letters indicate about his Christology? Have you written about this, Dr. Ehrman?
Yes, I deal with this in my book.
Professor Ehrman, in How Jesus Became God, you note that a Yahweh passage (Is. 45:22-23) is applied to Jesus in Paul’s letter to the Philippians. Is not a Yahweh passage also applied to Jesus in Mark 1:3 (Matt. 3:3 and Luke 3:4, too)? Does this indicate that the author of Mark understood Jesus to be divine, in some sense? Further, does this indicate that he understood Jesus to be divine before his baptism? How do you interpret the application of a Yahweh passage to Jesus in the synoptics?
Some people have argued that, but I’ve always thought that Mark understands Jesus as “Lord” in a different sense from Yahweh. In other words, when Mark talks about preparing theway of the Lord, heis using the Greek Bible which uses Lord as the term for Yahweh — but the term can mean otehr things too, and Mark takes him to mean one of these other things (the Lord/master, not the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY).
I don’t see how Mark could have quoted Is. 40:3 without noticing that the passage references God: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God” (ESV). Even in translation, the reference is obvious. That Mark might be quoting the passage incidentally or liberally is certainly possible, but at the very least this introduces a degree of ambiguity. How might Mark’s Gentile and/or Jewish auditors have understood this reference?
Of course, there are other considerations. Did the “forerunner” component of the narrative originate with Mark, or did he inherit it? (My thoughts are that he likely inherited it.) If the latter, what was his source? Did it come from early, Jewish Christians? If the former, it remains possible (even likely) that Mark was making a claim about Christ’s nature.
I think you have a strong point and I think that is correct. Mark 1:3 is from Isaiah 40:3 and specifically talks about YWHY. I think this is a text that strongly adhere’s to the prexistance of Christ due to the fact John the Baptist “preparing the way” of the Lord (Jesus).
Do you think, then, that Mark understands that Jesus is YHWH? Now *that* would be an amazing Christology!
If anything, this introduces an element of “high” Christology into the Gospel of Mark. John the Baptist ushers in the divine word — how ever this is to be understood. It is noteworthy that John *precedes* Jesus, and that Jesus is portrayed, not as an ordinary man later to be exalted, but as a pre-exalted divine presence — again, how ever this is to be understood. Most surely, the Gospel of Mark (or an earlier tradition) applies a YHWH passage to Christ, and this is not unprecedented.
The author of Mark is deliberately ambiguous, inviting questions as to the nature of the Christ. In Mark 12, Jesus reinterprets Psalm 110, saying that David prophesied — “in the Holy Spirit” — that *he* (David) saw the Lord (YHWH) say to his Lord (the Christ, as interpreted by Jesus), “Sit at my right hand…” Again, the Christ (Jesus) is a preexisting being, whom David saw in antiquity. Concluding his interpretation of Psalm 110, Jesus states, “David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?”
The YHWH reference in Mark 12 cannot be applied to Jesus, in this instance, but he is closely connected to YHWH, so closely that his (the Christ’s) status as the “son of David” (not disputed in Mark 10) is not understood in any traditional sense.
I heard in a debate by Bart the statement in John of Christ being equal with the Father. The problem is that Jesus never says this or implies it. In fact Jesus explicitly states the opposite…that the Father is greater than him. Jesus saying that He and the Father are one doesn’t really mean to say they are equal, considering the high focus of Spiritual relationship. They could be one in the same way a man and wife are one even though Bible writers would say the wife is subservient. When Jesus says he existed before the world began, I’m not sure he’s saying that he is God…
The following verses refer to Jesus Christ being the Creator:
Colossians 1:16
1 Corinthians 8:6
John 1:3
Further, it’s alluded as to Christ’s ultimate role by God in creation…I believe in one of Paul’s writings…that Christ is putting everything subject to himself and then subjecting himself to the Father. But I guess the issue is that Jesus didn’t outright say these things…they were only attributed by others
I don’t Jesus was ever worshiped in the New Testament. Here is my rationale:
The Greek word προσκυνέω( its English transliteration being proskyneō [looks similar to the word prostrate]) has been translated as ‘worship’ throughout the whole New Testament, except for one particular instance:
Most newer translations have exchanged the Greek word for ‘worship’ for the English phrase of ‘bowing down’. Older translations have maintained the Greek word for ‘worship’ as the English word for ‘worship’:
Why this Change?
The older translations falsely imply that God wants the corrupt Jews to worship the Church of Philadelphia. So according to the older translations, the pantheon of God not only extends to the existing trinity but also to a whole church, which Christians would obviously deny.
Two questions arise from this controversy:
(1) Why are Bible translators manipulating their scripture which they believe is the word of God?
The answer is obvious they want to hide the inconsistencies in the Bible to prevent the masses from questioning the basic tenets of their religion(i.e. the divinity of Jesus, and the trinity. etc.)
(2) Does bowing down actually mean worship?
Not necessarily, the prime example being the story of Joseph where his family bowed down to him out of respect, where they actually worshiping him? No.
So in the New Testament , where we find instances like this:
The same word for ‘worshipped’ should be translated as ‘bowed down to him’.
Regarding John 8:58 and the pre-eternal existence of Jesus, did Jeremiah have a pre-eternal existence as it says in Jeremiah 1:5?
Are you asking my opinion about Jesus? Then the answer is no.
Hi Bart,
I’ve read your book on ‘How Jesus became God’ and became fascinated with the concept of differing degrees of divinity in the Jewish and early Christian traditions. I just wanted to ask you a practical question regarding Jesus’ divinity. Did Jesus and/or his disciples consider Jesus as divine in the sense that Jesus was coequal with God the Father (Creator of the universe). Do Unitarian Christians have a closer representation to the early theological truth than Trinitarians based on the gospels? I know you are an agnostic but if for the sake of argument you were to become a Christian again, would your opinion change regarding the divinity of Jesus?
From reading your materials I would hazard a guess that you would say that according to early Christian tradition, Jesus was regarded as divine by both himself and his contemporary disciples and but that Jesus was not God the Father in human flesh (and therefore not co-equal to God the Father, but instead subservient). Many thanks and look forward to your response.
I think you need to read the book again to get an idea of what I think. For one thing, I do not think Jesus considered himself divine. I explain why at some length in the book.
Hi Bart!
How do you read Mk 12,35-37. Some authors would point out that passage and claim that Mark presents Jesus here as someone who existed before David did. David calls him Lord! Could you provide your explanation of the verse in a few sentences. Also, what about Lk 10:18 where Jesus (at least in the narative of “Luke”) claims to be there when the devil itself was expeld from the heaven. Hope you can help me.
Thank’s!
The verses have been interpreted a variety of ways — e.g., to show that the messiah did *not* (in Jesus’ view) have to be a descendant of David. I’ve long been attracted to the idea that Jesus is not actually making any positive statement about hwo the messiah was or was not, but that he was using a kind of socratic device simply to show that his opponents didn’t know what they were talking about, by posing a question they couldn’t answer. More recently I’ve suspected that it’s not something Jesus actually said himself, but words put on his lips by later followers who wanted to show that the true messiah was not a political warrior like David but was actually a divine Lord (which is what they said about Jesus after his resurrection).
Dr. Ehrman, thank you for your contributions to humankind. I hold you in very high regard.
I first learned of the evolutionary Christology view from “How Jesus Became God”, and do agree it has merit. You mention in this post that, yes, the synoptics do illustrate a divine Jesus. Despite this fact, do you think there are still clues in the synoptic gospels which evince Jesus did not claim to be a God? If so, what are those clues?
That he did *not* claim to be God? I think maybe the absence of him *claiming* to be God would be the evidence? Or do you mean something else. (He never *denies* being God, if that’s what you mean. Then again, neither have I, but, well, why would it occur to me that I would need to? 🙂 )
Thank you Dr. Ehrman for your time in response. I so much appreciate and value your ideas. I’m just trying to figure stuff out.
Haha well, I don’t think many people are calling you the Son of God, or Lord much are they? That is probably why you aren’t confronted with the idea of denying those things. To my recollection (definitely could be wrong), Jesus is referred to at times by one person or another as “Son of God” or “Lord” (is calling someone “Lord” and “Son of God” the same as calling someone God?) But this is neither here nor there…
The focus of my post is I thought Jesus called himself God at least once somewhere in the synoptics, and I was thinking if he is found calling himself God, then what are the clues in the New Testament indicating that he didn’t really call himself God. For instance, I kind of thought Matthew 4:5-7 is Jesus calling himself God:
“Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, “He will command his angels concerning you,” and, “On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.” Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.”
So the idea is Jesus called himself God by referring to himself in the third person. Satan is putting Jesus to the test (tempting) by taunting him, then Jesus responds by saying you shall not put (me) the Lord your God to the test. Is this a bad interpretation? I didn’t think too much fancy footwork was needed to see this interpretation, honestly. I’m sure you’ve heard this a thousand times before but I would love any comments you have time to give. Thank you.
Ha! No that’s right, no one is calling me the Lord and Son of God. Certainly not in my household…. But my bigger point is that they almost certainly weren’t saying that about Jesus in his lifetime either. (I see the temptation stories as legends, not as historical accounts of what really happened.)
Dr. Ehrman,
“So yes, now I agree that Jesus is portrayed as a divine being, a God-man, in all the Gospels. But in very different ways, depending on which Gospel you read”
Do you still think so?
Thank you
Yup, most decidedly!
I have just finished reading chapter three of “How Jesus Became God”. I have already commented on most of the topics, so don’t have much to add now.
I continue to hold that your comments on oral societies (page 93) lack necessary nuance, although that nuance is not relevant to the gospel stories, only to _general_ claims.
There were some instances where I would quibble with your word choices, but they aren’t important. Aside: I had assumed that “obesiance” was old-fashioned but was surpised to learn that the ratio of occurences with comparable words such as “worship” or “devotion” has remained more or less steady over time (source: google ngrams).
On exalted claims Jesus makes for himself in the synoptics, Matthew has Jesus equate “people he does not know” with “people who won’t enter the Kingdom”, which is pretty exalted, although again, not in itself divine, as human rulers may also banish people (the difference being that there aren’t any other kingdoms on the map, so to be banished from the kingdom of heaven is to be banished from existence).
Dr Ehrman,
“or to have been made the son of God by virtue of the fact that God was literally his father, in that it was the Spirit of God that made the virgin Mary pregnant (Luke 1:35)”
You argue that the first 2 chapters of Luke are a later addition just like Luke 22:20 which is why you believe Luke has no doctrine of atonement, so why are you quoting Luke 1:35 in this context? Maybe because it was the author himself who added them? Or are there other reasons?
Thank you,
Michele Fornelli
I”m not sure what you’re asking? I”m not saying that the author of Luke 3-24 had these views, but that the Gospel of Luke (as we have it) does. ANd yes, it’s possible that the author of 3-24 added 1-2. Or that someone else did.