Loading...Here is the second post on the Very Reverend Robert Barron’s curious critiques of my book How Jesus Became God. I will not be doing a point-by-point assessment of everything he says; I frankly found none of his criticisms very convincing, largely because, as I indicated in the previous post, he does not appear to have read my book very carefully, but at best skimmed it to find what he was expecting to find. But I thought I would deal at least with his opening counter-argument, over whether Jesus saw himself or proclaimed himself to be God. Here is what he says.
Ehrman’s major argument
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Worth noting that a repost of Barron’s critique appeared on The American Catholic website this morning. Curious timing.
https://the-american-catholic.com/2014/04/16/father-barron-v-bart-ehrman-no-contest/
The linked post appears to have been published on 16 April 2014, not “this morning”. The comments under it also date from 2014.
It seems to me that using the word “God” (with a capital G) is problematic when talking about Mark’s conception of Jesus (perhaps John’s as well). It’s one thing to say that Mark viewed Jesus as a “person who is exalted to become divine at his baptism.” It’s quite another to say that “Mark sees Jesus as God,” especially since there is nothing to indicate that Mark held a “Trinitarian” conception of God.
Hi, Bart!
1) Do you think that the commandment of God supported by Jesus in Matthew 15:4 * [4] For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’ * is a case for immorality and ignorance (for a devine being) of the illness called Tourette’s syndrom? Its tics are not the faults of the person that cannot help but disobey the commandment.
2) Is it true that the historical Jesus did not regard all people as sinners that needed repentance? There is a confusing passage for me in Luke 15:1-7
“[2] And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.”
= Who makes part of the groups of sinners here? Who doesn’t belong to the sinner’s “club”? There is a difference made here (not people seem to be alike here regarding their deeds)
”[7] Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
= Jesus talks of righteous people who needed no repentence (meaning they exist, right?)
In other parts he says that no one is rightous except the Father.
1. Jesus wouldn’t have known what Tourette’s syndrome is. But he’s clearly talking about an intentional speech act. 2. “Sinners” in this context refers to those who choose not to be particularly rigorous in keeping the torah. The saying seems hyperbolic to me — Jesus urges everyone to repent and was himself baptized for the remission of sins, so he’s just trying to show that it’s not wrong for him to spend time with the lowlifes who need repentance most of all.
Thanks for your response!
You mean to say he was baptised for the remission of his own sins?
Yes, that’s why people were getting baptized.
“decipher a different semiotic system”
Wow — that’s some serious hand-waving there. What does that even mean? I think Bart was being overly generous in granting that Barron was using it in an even remotely coherent way.
To me it makes no sense to think that Mark’s gospel portrays Jesus as God. In 8:22-25 Jesus fails to heal a blind man on the first try and has to try again. God would not have that problem. In 10:17-19 Mark originally writes “Why do you call me good; no one is good except the father”. God would not claim that he, as the son, is not good. In 15:34 Jesus cries out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”. God would know the answer and, therefore, not cry out that question. In 14:32-37 Jesus cries out for God to save him from crucifixion. Again, God would not cry out such a request since God knows the crucifixion is ordained. In 12:32-33 Jesus says he does not know when the end time is. But God would obviously know when the end time is. Similar problems exist in the other synoptic gospels. Luke 2:52 says Jesus increased with wisdom as he aged and that contradicts Malachi 3:6 “For I am the Lord, I change not”. It seems like Barron is deliberately overlooking a lot of stuff.
Bart do we have any indication of what the early disciples (the Twelve) thought of Christ’s divinity? Would this have been a live discussion within the early Jerusalem church? Perhaps something brought up at the council of Jerusalem? I’m assuming Paul is likely our best in insight here.
Since we have no writings from them, no. Paul doesn’t tell us what they believe about it either. But it’s possible to make some intelligent surmises. Since they almost certaingly thought (well, some of them if not all of them?) that Jesus had been taken bodily up to heaven, in the ancient world that would always mean that he had been divinized. So from that point on they would have thought he had become a divine being.
Professor, do historians have anything like the legal “plain reading rule”? Ie. “ The plain meaning rule says that otherwise relevant information about statutory meaning is not needed and excluded when the statutory text is plain or unambiguous.
I’m not sure how many historians bother to state it that way as a criterion, but sure, they propose reading texts that are unambiguous as being unambiguous unless there are other mitigating circumstances.
Even more, deriving a Trinitarian conception of God from John 1:1 and the rest of the Gospel of John, also requires further special semiotic systems. I would argue that John present Jesus as a pre-existent divine being, but as the 2nd component of a Trinity requires some reasoning I’ve never been able to follow.
Does E.P.Sanders give a source for the Temple priests’ formula of absolution?
I don’t know/remember!
It’s perhaps worth pointing out that Mark portrays Jesus as seeking recognition or verification from his followers and finds it in Peter who declares him, not God but the anointed one.
“So, in Mark 16:8 when the women flee from the presence of the man at the empty tomb with fear and astonishment – does that mean that the person at the tomb was God?”
Well, I think he is!!!
The man in the empty tomb WAS Jesus… and any Christian who died for him.
The “young man sitting on the right side” says to the women:
“You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him.”
In fact, Jesus of Nazareth was not there, in the “place where they laid him”; he had risen…
The women, like the men on the road to Emmaus, “were kept from recognizing him” (Luke 24:16); they couldn’t see how the dead and tortured corpse wrapped in a linen shroud had turned into a young man in a white robe.
But, how is that “he is [also] going before [the disciples] to Galilee”?
Well, Jesus is where his followers are, even in the middle of a lake with strong winds, Jesus could, like a ghost, walk over the water to give you courage.
FYI In your post, the link to the Michael Peppard book The Son of God in the Roman World is broken as is. However when I cut/paste it into my response here it seems to work. That’s odd. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-son-of-god-in-the-roman-world-9780199933655?q=peppard&lang=en&cc=us\
is broken
Thanks.
Dr. Ehrman,
Since we have many branches of Judaism, a distinction of orthodox or heresy, the gnostics, differences of all sorts in the gospels, Paul’s views being different than Jesus views, etc. aren’t all people sort of making things up and picking and choosing there own religion?
I’m not sure what the option would be for that? (Not just for Christianity, but for every religion, economic system, political views, social agendas, cultural preferences, and so on! Human institutions/views are always human!)
Somewhat related to the divinity topic: do scholars believe Jesus actually spoke the words attributed to him by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (“This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me,” etc.)? What’s the best historical explanation as to how the Eucharist i.e. Communion became an integral part of Christian worship so early on? Would Peter have been the likely original source?
(if covered elsewhere on the blog or in one of your books, feel free to point me there. I didn’t find a clear answer after a quick blog and book search — but I haven’t read them all)
I doubt it; I’m pretty sure he didn’t indicate that his body and blood was given “for others.” He may have anticipated his coming death (reading the writing on the wall)and said something about it. But the atonement language, in my judgment does not go back to him.
Any clues as to how the Eucharist i.e. Communion became an integral part of Christian worship so early on?
It’s still the most important service in Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and higher church Protestantism (Lutheran and Anglican in particular). It was apparently a big deal to Paul in his communication with the Corinthians (the consecration parts of the Orthodox Liturgy are practically direct quotes from Paul for whatever Paul was quoting from).
Jewish ritual antecedents? Purely gentile? (some claim Mithras type mystery rituals as a source, but I’m skeptical)
Since it commemorated Jesus atoning death, it was celebrated every week bythe earliest Christians so they could remember why and what they believed. It became an integral part of community life, and then, of course, changed significantly in tidfferent times and places, resulting in the various interpretatoins/understanding we find today.
I’m still puzzling over why Bishop Barron should attack your book in this way. Having attended a Catholic Church for nearly 40 years, I have to admit that most Catholics are not that well informed on early Church history and tend to care mostly about Church doctrine (I’m generalising, of course). The Tablet magazine profiled Barron a couple of years ago and he came across as fairly reasonable compared to most US RC bishops (who tend to be on the right theologically and consider Pope Francis to be far too liberal). However, based on the thousands of sermons I have heard over the years, the RC Church does like to give the impression that Nicene Christianity was there from the get go, with Jesus, as God, ordaining (male) priests and bishops and establishing the doctrine of Transubstantiation at the Last Supper. I suspect then that your book needed to be challenged on those grounds alone. But I’m sure that other historians, including Catholics, such as Raymond Brown, have covered similar territory but probably fudged the more sensitive aspects that were likely to incense the Church
There is also the need to recognize that no one knows what the gospel writers actually wrote and believed, since all copies of copies of the original text. And subsequently, it is likely to be the official versions that were likely “slightly edited” by some bishop to ensure they were not contrary to the beliefs of the group he recognized. They may have also been “slightly edited” multiple times by various church leaders during the first four Christian centuries, when multiple versions were circulating because of unintended changes made when they were copied and passed on.
I believe the edits made by church officials were slight but meaningful because “the people” were familiar with their content from hearing and reading them, and would have questioned officials if the noticed major changes.
These uncertainties do not detract from the underlying belief that Jesus was a “holy man” who delivered a message that God loved people, and those who helped the needy were held in high esteem.
Bill Steigelmann
If priests regularly say “your sins are forgiven” then why are the people shocked saying “Only God can forgive sins.”? Is that Mark trying to make Jesus appear to be god, and isn’t aware that priests do this?
Can you give any examples or quotes from the hebrew bible, or other non-NT source that has priests saying “your sins are forgiven”. Its easy to imagine a priest saying it in a passive sense, but it’d great if we have it in writing somewhere.
It’s often read as Mark’s way of saying “Jesus is God,” but I don’t think that’s what is going on the passage. He is saying that he has God’s power to forgive sins, and he proves it. His followers too can do that. God wants to forgive sins, just as we forgive others.
Dr. Ehrman, I don’t agree with the Reverend Robert Barron, but I would like to question your comment.
“Anytime someone tells me that you need to be able to “decipher a different semiotic system” when it comes to the New Testament, I start to get nervous. Normally that means that you’re not supposed to read the text for what it says, but for what it means. And how you are supposed to know what it means apart from what it says?
It usually means that you need to impose a different meaning on the words from their normal meaning. And how do you know what that correct different meaning is? Well, you could ask someone else (e.g., on the Internet). Or you could impose your own theology on the text. Or as a shortcut you could simply make the text say what you want it to say.“
“ How do you know what that correct different meaning is?”
Wouldn’t you agree that a word, when used figuratively in two, three or more other biblical writings with the same different meaning, may also be justifiably given that different meaning elsewhere? Maybe? Depending on the context.
Yup.
“In Mark, Jesus is NOT a pre-existent divine being who has come to earth in human form (an incarnation Christology, such as found in John).”
Mark refers to Jesus as the Son of Man several times even though Jesus may not have made that designation for himself. Doesn’t that indicate Mark believed Jesus to be a pre-existing being?
Mark situates Jesus with angels several times—being attended to by angels in the wilderness, having discussions about being neither male or female like the angels; the angels and the Son of Man don’t know when they will come until the Father reveals it, but when they do know, the Son of Man will send his angels; Mark places an angel at the tomb…. Jesus has extensive knowledge about angels and closely connected with angels. That seems to indicate he’s an extraordinary (pre-existing Son of Man) human being (fleshly son of man) who isn’t like the rest of us.
Mark and Paul’s Christology are similar, no?
I’m not sure there’s any Jewish discussion of the Son of Man as a human who pre-existed, only as a divine judge of the earth. When Mark thinks of Jesus as Son of Man, he’s thinking of him as the future cosmic judge who is coming from heaven (as in Daniel 7) because that’s where he *is* now for Mark, following the resurrection.
Mark and Paul: I’d say not really. Paul does have a pre-existent Christ, but Mark seems to think of Jesus as having a strictly human origin.
Oh, I thought you said a few years ago that the Book of Enoch presents the Son of Man as a pre-existing angelic being, and that may have been Jesus’s view for the Son of Man as well. Obviously, Jesus believed the Son of Man pre-existed in the cosmic realm. Since Mark thought Jesus was the Son of Man, then perhaps he thought Jesus was a pre-existing angel or cosmic judge. If that’s not the case, then what do you think is the point of Mark including so many angelic scenes?
I don’t recall saying that, but it’s humanly possible. What verses of Enoch do you mean? Nothing in Mark suggests Jesus pre-existed, never speaks of him as an angel, and his coming as Son of Man doesn’t need to indicate pre-existent, even if some other book sees it that way.
“Mark has an adoption/exaltation Christology”
GMark is explicitly Separationist Christology. Can you briefly explain why you instead said “adoption”?
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4412&hilit=Separationist
Joseph
I don’t see separationism in Mark. Jesus is a human from beginning to end. A distinct divine being does not enter him at some point and then leave him at some point.
Hello Dr.Ehrman,
I hope you are doing well. I have been watching your debates with Mike Licona. I wanted to see if I could get clarification on one part of the debate. In the debate a big part of the discussion between you an licona is the contradictions in the gospels. Licona tries to make excuses for them. But I was curious it seems licona had a decent point that the gospels were written with historical intent. No I am just thinking if there wasn’t any contradictions in them would that itself be enough to say that they are historically reliable documents or is there more reason to be suspect? Thank you Bill
I’d say there are two issues. If an author changed a passage so that it then contradicted another, even if he did it for historical reasons it is sitll a contradiction and both can’t be historailly correct. Other issue: the lack of contradictions in a text certainly does not show that it’s historically accurate.