(5 votes, average: 4.80 out of 5)
Loading...I have not decided yet whether I will be dealing point-by-point with every one of the Very Reverend Robert Barron’s critiques of How Jesus Became God. I frankly found none of them 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 for the thesis that Jesus did not consider himself divine is that explicit statements of Jesus’ divine identity can be found only in the later fourth Gospel of John, whereas the three Synoptic Gospels, earlier and thus presumably more historically reliable, do not feature such statements from Jesus himself or the Gospel writers. This is so much nonsense. It is indeed the case that the most direct affirmations of divinity are found in John—“I and the Father are one;” “before Abraham was I am;” “He who sees me sees the Father,” etc. But equally clear statements of divinity are on clear display in the Synoptics, provided we know how to decipher a different semiotic system.
For example, in Mark’s Gospel, we hear that as the apostolic band is making its way toward Jerusalem with Jesus, “they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid” (Mk. 10:32). Awe and terror are the typical reactions to the presence of Yahweh in the Old Testament. Similarly, when Matthew reports that Jesus, at the beginning of the last week of his earthly life, approached Jerusalem from the east, by way of Bethpage and Bethany and the Mount of Olives, he is implicitly affirming Ezekiel’s prophecy that the glory of the Lord, which had departed from his temple, would return from the east, by way of the Mount of Olives. In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus addresses the crippled man who had been lowered through the roof of Peter’s house, saying, “My son, your sins are forgiven,” to which the bystanders respond, “Who does this man think he is? Only God can forgive sins.” What is implied there is a Christology as high as anything in John’s Gospel.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN, OR YOU MAY NEVER KNOW!!!
It sounds like the Very Reverend Robert Barron had his mind made up in advance of perusing your book (theologically) and didn’t use any valid historical argument.
And he apparently reads into scripture his own theology.
What is a “Very Reverend” in the Roman Catholic system?
A very interesting and informative post, Dr. E. Thanks.
I think in his case he is “very” because he is the president of a Catholic university/seminary.
“what Barron appears to mean is that texts in the New Testament are hearkening back to texts in the Old Testament, so to understand the former you have to understand them in their canonical context. Fair enough. But if you do that to the exclusion of reading the words in their own context, you are not engaged in a historical interpretation but a theological one.”
I agree Barron’s point about divinity of Jesus based on the evangelists’ description of the disciples being amazed and afraid, is very contrived. Fear and amazement are so generic. However, surely the gospel authors often attribute actions and words to Jesus in order to fulfill typologies of the Hebrew Bible? I agree with you that we should not approach the meaning of NT texts solely to fit with our OT canon. However, it is clear that NT authors sometimes write with their biblical canon in mind. Historians today should be interested in understanding NT authors’ theology shaped by the OT.
I am amused to read a Catholic priest thinks “Only God can forgive sins”, forgetting what he does on the other side of the confession box. And didn’t the resurrected Jesus tell Peter in Gospel of John that Peter can forgive sins?
Thanks for explaining “semiotic system” the meaning of which I had no clue when I read Rev. Barron’s comments.
Brilliant, Ehrman. Just brilliant! Keep on keeping on, save the world from the shackles of Ignorance.
This is all very clear and unambiguous in your book. The Reverend’s perceptions are obviously a product of his preconceived ideas.
If I ever visit Israel, I shall make a point to enter Jerusalem from the east with great fanfare. All those who witness this event will surely proclaim me God and sing my praises. It’ll be awesome!
!!
I think there is some middle ground here.
“Before Abraham was born I am.” John 8:58
Would we agree that the “I am” is intended to convey a meaning beyond just the notion that Jesus may have lived before Abraham’s birth? Isn’t the author conveying the notion that Jesus is God?
The way we know this is how I am was viewed to mean God from the old testament. I think this answers not only a theological question but the historical question: what was the author trying to tell us.
Whether the author of mark was intending to mention Jesus’s coming from the east as an indication that he was divine might be ultimately unconvincing. But I don’t think its out of the question. And I do think it deals with the historical question of whether the author was trying to convey the divinity of Jesus.
Yes, that’s what John is trying to say. I deal with this in my book How Jesus Became God. You may want to read it — it deals with lots of similar things.
Even Simon Gathercole appeals to Mark 9 in your “debate” on the Unbelievable podcast. As an agnostic, I used to a bit intimidated by Christian scholars and apologists but the more I actually listen to their arguments the less impressed I am by them. There is a lot of cherry-picking and focusing on minutia (like Gathercole’s “I have come” study). The overwhelming weight of evidense and sense seem to be going against believers that I wonder if there are any effective arguments left them? Or am I just too entrenched in my own views?
Do you find any scholars arguing for traditional belief with convincing arguments?
Not convincing enough to convince me!!
I’ve been thinking…if I wanted to believe the Christology found in John was “the real truth,” *and* I didn’t feel a compulsion to show the Synoptics had said or implied the same thing (of course, very few believers *wouldn’t* feel that compulsion!), here’s what I’d argue.
I’d speculate that the Synoptic authors lived in a broadly-defined region, different from that of the author of John. Jesus really had made the exalted claims for himself that appear in John (if not in those exact words). You ask, “Why would the Synoptics not have mentioned what would have been *the most important things Jesus said*?” I’d argue that in the Synoptics’ region, early believers thought he couldn’t possibly have made such “blasphemous” claims…the reports *must have been* exaggerated! So the claims were “edited out of” the tradition at an early date. Therefore, even though John was writing decades later, he was the only one who “got it right.”
No one could *prove* such a thesis; but no one could totally *dis*prove it, either.
You’re right — and that’s true of virtually all theses! The question is whether one is more plausible than another, and why….
I am in the process of reading “How Jesus Became God,” and I can attest that if Barron had read the book as carefully as Dr. Erhman wrote it, he would have come to an entirely different conclusion. That is, if he didn’t let his preconceived theological viewpoint interfere with his analysis.
Just thought of this question. We usually read that Jesus was crucified somewhere in the range of 30 to 33 CE. Does that mean that not enough is known about the ancient Jewish calendar to determine in which of those years Passover fell on the day before the Sabbath?
The problem is that we don’t know if the Gospels are right in putting Jesus’ death on the Passover day before the Sabbath…..
Could another problem be that the first day of Unleavened Bread (one day after the Passover), and considered to be an annual Sabbath, result in two Sabbaths that week (one annual and one weekly)?
No, I don’t think an annual festival was called a Sabbath.
I don’t think this alters the basic point here, but I wanted to mention one example which I came across recently in which the term “sabbath” _was_ used to refer to an annual festival.
Specifically it had to do with how the beginning of the Jewish Feast of Weeks (or “Shavulot”) is determined. The rule for scheduling the feast is given in Lev 23. Following a discussion of Passover, the passage continues:
“And from the day after the sabbath, from the day on which you bring the sheath of the elevation you shall count off seven week; they shall be complete. You shall count until the day after the seventh sabbath, fifty days; then you shall present an offering of new grain to The Lord”.
Now the clear, most straightforward reading here is something like: “Starting from Passover, wait until the day after the next sabbath, then count fifty days, and that is the first day of Shavulot”. And, indeed, this is how the passage is interpreted by, for example, various Jewish sects like the Karites and the Essenes; in the Book of Jubilees; by various early Christian interpreters, etc.
However, in the Talmud, the first occurrence of the term “sabbath” is understood as referring to Passover itself (presumably, in part, by interpreting “sabbath” to refer to “a day of rest”). Consequently, in rabbinic Judaism, the counting of the fifty days is assumed to start on the day after Passover (= “the day after the sabbath”).
Now, I’m certainly not interested in starting a debate on which is the correct interpretation. And this is, of course, not strictly speaking “biblical”. But I thought this usage of the term “sabbath” was interesting in the current context.
But assuming they are… I just checked Mark (the one thought to be most trustworthy), and it clearly says not only that it was the day before the Sabbath, but also that the “third day” on the morning of which the women supposedly found the tomb empty was “the first day of the week” – the day *after* the Sabbath. Does that correspond with the calendar for 30 CE? (I’ve gotten the impression 30 CE is thought to be the most likely year.)
Another question – at what hour is Mark saying Jesus died? I don’t understand the meaning of the “sixth hour” and “ninth hour.” Was he alive on the cross for three hours, or – as I think I’ve read somewhere – six? And…”sixth” and “ninth” counting from *when*? I know Catholics believe he was alive on the cross between noon and 3:00 p.m. by our reckoning, but I’ve always thought that came from John.
If I recall, none of the possible years line up with the chronology of any of the Gospels.
The hours were counted starting at 6:00 a.m. So the sixth hour is noon and the ninth hour is 3:00 p.m.
When one considers all the events reported concerning those last days before the crucifixion it is hard to believe that it occurred over a Passover. All the details such as the upper room, the barren fig tree, the riding on an ass, the waving of the luvafs or palm leaves, the shouts of Hosanna, the meal without any reference to the roast lamb, etc. etc. all point to a Feast of Tabernacles event NOT a Passover. The Feast of Tabernacles also has greater meaning for an apocalyptic message … this was the time of release or the Year of the Lord’s favor as noted in the famous passage read by Jesus from Isaiah.
The time shift was indeed to point to Jesus as the lamb without blemish who was slain for the sins of the world. It was indeed the turning point of the whole Christian message from one of the redemption of Israel to what has become individual redemption and personal salvation in some ethereal heaven (as per Paul)..
Hmm. If none of the years considered plausible really had Passover falling on the day before the Sabbath, that’s another argument against the empty tomb story! As I’ve always understood it, Joseph’s intent was to have the body in a secure place before the Sabbath, on which no one could do much of anything. And that day’s being the Sabbath explained the women’s not coming back to the tomb (where one might assume they’d seen Joseph put it) till the next morning.
However, even if the dating does seem wrong, I remember your saying *you* believed the empty tomb story most of your life…
Re the things I suggested before, about Joseph of Arimathea’s possibly having taken the body to Nazareth? If he was well-to-do, he could have been traveling with one or more horse-drawn wagons – making the trip in less time than someone walking. And he could have had the decomposing body in a makeshift “coffin” that was nailed shut, to reduce if not eliminate the stench. He would have expected Jesus’s kin to take him at his word that the body was Jesus’s, be thankful he’d brought it, and bury the coffin unopened.
*But*…the “wrongly understood temporary interment” idea works even if Joseph *didn’t* go to Nazareth. Let’s suppose Joseph put the body in his family tomb temporarily, sure he’d see some of Jesus’s disciples the next day. He assumed they’d want to give their leader a decent, if secret, burial in or near Jerusalem – perhaps on the property of some other local follower. Joseph might have been unable to keep the body himself because other members of his family would learn about it and object.
But he couldn’t find any of the disciples the next day (supposedly the Sabbath). He realized they’d gone into hiding, thought he might never find them. So he made other arrangements, perhaps with his own rabbi. As I suggested about a Nazareth rabbi, this one only agreed to rebury Jesus on condition his involvement be kept secret.
Later, Joseph couldn’t reveal what had ultimately become of the body. And when he tried to deny Jesus had been “raised from the dead,” the faithful refused to believe him. They insisted he was just trying to shoot down stories linking him and the tomb with Jesus, for the sake of his reputation.
About the “Holy Sepulchre” location accepted, I assume, by Helena…were any of the places she “identified” the real locations? I recall seeing, on TV, the supposed room of the “Last Supper.” Is that considered authentic? I’ve assumed it isn’t. But it might be significant if Helena asked 4th-century residents of Jerusalem about the “empty tomb” and they directed her to *something* (doubtless, for a price!). If they – probably non-Christians – had never heard of that tradition, they might have given it away by blurting out, “Huh? *What* ’empty tomb’?”
No, all the places identified later (especially the upper room!) are just legendary associations.
One would think that an incident, matter, of such importance would have been written and recorded on stone.
Prof Ehrman
It is so unfortunate that you need to waste your time contending with “critics” who can’t even be bothered to offer the simple respect of just reading the book.
Hoping you and your family had a good Easter (and the weather there was as beautiful as it’s been here in Vermont.)
hwl,
Indeed!
“Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”
It is of interest to note that in most cases where Jesus is said to forgive sin it is associated with the curing of a disease. One must remember that in those days,the cause of sickness and disease was associated with sin. Thus it was impossible to cure a disease WITHOUT addressing the cause and thus dismissing the sin. I think that in the mind of Jesus his proclamation of forgiveness of the sin was predicated on his close association with the Father. Thus he could confidently speak on behalf of the Father who indeed could and did forgive the sin.
It also might be mentioned that the heritage from the Old Testament was that God in most cases caused the disease as a punishment for sin. Read Deuteronomy where there are three pages listing the many curses that God would visit on those who committed sins.
After watching some videos on this Unitarian Christian channel: http://www.youtube.com/TheTrinityDelusion, I have my doubts that there is even a high christology in the New Testament.
Also I have seen Unitarians (or at least one Unitarian Christian) interpret John 1:1 that the Word was just purely the logos not an actual being or divine entity or the Son..but just purely the word that became manifest later on in the man Jesus Christ. Also last time I checked Jews in the ancient times also used the term “God” in a secondary idiomatic sense as well. Just some of my thoughts and insights I wanted to share.
You may need to read my book then!
definitely plan on it, but just a quick question, do you believe that Jesus’ contemporary followers believed he was God? and if so, how can Jesus’ followers end up believing he is God when he historically (i believe) never thought that he was God
It’s in my book! It’s a key point!!
DR Ehrman:
To me the reliable portrayal of Jesus is found in the account recored by John.
Each Gospel stands of falls by its own merits of lack thereof.
I consider ‘Matthew’ and ‘Mark’ apocryphal narratives. The persons who wrote Matthew, and Mark were not ‘eyewitness’. Their sources were not from ‘eyewitnesses’. Matthew and Mark to me are like the Gospels of Thomas, Mary and Peter. I Don’t regard these writings as the words inspired by God nor historically accurate so I don’t quote from them.
I don’t trust what is written in Luke either; I think Luke was altered before the church canonized it.
I suspect the genealogy in Luke was interpolated at some point perhaps after Theophilus passed away. There are other questionable statements in Luke attributed to Christ that don’t make any sense to me.
The Truth is that anything quoted from Matthew, Mark, or Luke is unreliable historically.
We can’t assert accurately what Jesus said or did from these sources.
My opinion is, that of the four canonical Gospels, John is the most reliable document to understand who Jesus is and what He said about Himself. I’m personally convinced of this in my own mind.
NOTE: Jesus did not become God. He was the Word of God who was with God and became Flesh. In the passages below, the Apostle Paul and the author of 1 John clearly understood this.
I accept their testimony as true.
PHILLIPIANS 2:6-who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7-but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8-Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9-For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10-so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11-and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
1 JOHN 1:2-and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the ETERNAL LIFE, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—
Prof I just did a google search of “Ehrman how jesus became god review” and its mostly negative stuff from untrained evangelicals. have there been any reviews yet from serious NT scholars or is it too early? do they even read trade books?
How funny. I don’t read those kinds of reviews. There’s a nice review by Daniel Kirk worth looking at, of the book written against my book….
Very Reverend Barron says:
“In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus addresses the crippled man who had been lowered through the roof of Peter’s house, saying, “My son, your sins are forgiven,” to which the bystanders respond, “Who does this man think he is? Only God can forgive sins.” What is implied there is a Christology as high as anything in John’s Gospel.”
You say:
“The third example actually has some meat on it, and is very interesting – but not for the reason that Barron assumes when he imposes the Johannine Christology on the Markan passage. Absolutely contrary to what he says, this passage does not – decidedly does not – offer a Christology “as high as anything in John’s Gospel.” The whole point of the passage is to show that “the son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” It is important to note that the passage does not indicate the “source” of the son of man’s authority. The reason this is important is – as the great NT scholar E. P. Sanders has pointed out – in Judaism the prerogative of pronouncing sins forgiven was given to priests in the Jewish temple, upon the successful completion of sacrifice. Like Jesus, the priests would pronounce forgiveness in the passive voice “your sins are forgiven,” not in the active, “I forgive your sins.” It is God who forgives sins. If someone else does it in God’s name, it is because God has granted that person the authority. Jesus is claiming the authority of the priests in the temple. An authority given by God.”
But on your interpretation the response of the bystanders makes no sense. If as you say its clear that saying “your sins are forgiven” in the passive voice only means you are a priest as opposed to “I forgive your sins” a bystander would then only infer Jesus is claiming to be a priest not God. But Mark makes it clear that based on Jesus’s utterance the bystanders inferred he was claiming to be God. Moreover, Jesus did not say “well actually I used the passive voice so I am just claiming to be a priest.” Instead he performed a miracle right? I think the context does indeed suggest Mark is affirming the divinity of Jesus.
That said I think your view that Mark thought Jesus was adopted as a divine at his baptism is something that does have support. I don’t agree with it but I think its a reasonable interpretation if you look at Mark alone.
Doctor Ehrman
you wrote :
E. P. Sanders has pointed out – in Judaism the prerogative of pronouncing sins forgiven was given to priests in the Jewish temple, upon the successful completion of sacrifice. Like Jesus, the priests would pronounce forgiveness in the passive voice “your sins are forgiven,” not in the active, “I forgive your sins.” It is God who forgives sins. If someone else does it in God’s name, it is because God has granted that person the authority. Jesus is claiming the authority of the priests in the temple. An authority given by God.
////////////
quoting Fletcher-Louis:
You shall make a rosette of pure gold and you shall engrave on it the engravings of a seal ‘holy to Yahweh’ (or, ‘and you shall engrave on it the engravings of a holy seal…), “You shall put it on a blue cord that it may be on the turban, on the front of the turban. It shall be on Aaron’s forehead and Aaron shall bear/remove/forgive … the guilt of the holy things that the sons of Israel sanctify for all their holy donations; it shall always be on his forehead,… (Exodus 28:36-38, Fletcher-Louis)
Then again in Leviticus 10:17
Why did you not eat the sin offering in the sacred area? For it is most holy, and God has given it to you in order that you may remove/forgive … the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement on their behalf before the LORD
Fletcher-Louis:
Such passages convey the idea of the high priest having the power to remove guilt, to forgive sins. We know that some Jews took these passages to mean that the high priest’s job was to take away—to forgive—sin because in 2 Enoch 64 his contemporaries come to Enoch at the site of Israel’s future temple, they fall in reverential prostration before him, kiss him and say:
2 Enoch 64.5 You will be glorified in front of the face of the LORD of all eternity, because you are the one whom the LORD chose in preference to all the people upon the earth; and he appointed you…to be the one who carried away the sin of mankind (J recension; A recension has ‘who carries away our sins’) and the helper of your own household.
Enoch has already been installed as high priest in chapter 22 (vv. 8-10) and here he does what Exod. 28.38 and Lev. 10.17 say he should do: he takes away the sin of the people.(p. 73)
end quote
do you agree with Fletcher-Louis that “Such passages convey the idea of the high priest having the power to remove guilt, to forgive sins” ?
I’m afraid I haven’t looked deeply enough into it to have an opinion! But on the surface of it that appears to be a fair reading.
Here in New Zealand I’m nolonger convinced by theological interpretations and or Christian apologetics.
I’m more interested in historical and literal explanations of anything to do with the OT/NT and early Christianity traditions, beliefs and historical accounts free from theological bias and or the persuasive arguments of Christian apologists.