Loading...I am lined up to do a number of interviews for the new book, and here is the first, with a program called Interfaith Voices, hosted by Mareen Fiedler. Interfaith Voices is the nation’s leading public radio show about faith, ethics and spirituality, and plays on WAMU 88.5 FM in Washington, DC. The following is an interview taped on March 20th, 2014. She titles the radio program, “The Debate over the Divinity of Jesus” while referencing my latest book “How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee.”
She asks good, perceptive questions that allow me to talk about key aspects of my thesis in the book. The interview will provide a good overview of what you’ll find in it, once you get your grubby paws on it (now that my grubby paws are off it).
Please adjust gear icon for 720p High-Definition:
Thanks for your terrific presentation at Quail Ridge Books tonight. You are a remarkable teacher because you explain things so clearly. The best question occurred close to the end of the discussion period when a woman asked if rather than the disciples hallucinating a vision of Jesus after His death, did they “make up” stories about this matter. In other words, did the early Christians progressively and quickly exaggerate what they believed much as the commentators on Fox News quickly and progressively exaggerate what they believe to be the nightly news every night? I heard your answer about Paul having been unlikely to have made up his “vision” of Jesus because he got stoned for it, but I still think it is a good question.,
I was sadly disappointed this morning when the local Barnes & Noble did not receive the book in their daily shippment. I have to wait till tomorrow to pick it up (hopefully).
Please keep posting all the interviews you do. I love how interviews compel you to condense your ideas into easily remembered bits.
I bought a Kindle on Sunday and just bought the book. Looking forward to reading it!
Enjoyed the book reading/signing last night. You pointed out something that I realized a few years ago as I read through the Old Testament – the Jews were very polytheistic (henotheistic) rather than being the monotheists most people assume. And the same is true of Christians with the Trinity, Satan, angels, demons, cherubim and seraphim. But I hadn’t thought about the ways the Jews, like the pagans, had stories of divine beings taking human form and humans becoming in some sense divine. So, the idea of Jesus as either a divine human or a human god was really not an innovation for people of the 1st century. Looking forward to digesting the book!
She does ask excellent questions and your view of Jesus expressed in the last minute of the interview is quite clear and powerful. I agree with it. Thanks for you many and varied contributions.
Great interview! I have a bunch of thoughts…
Raised Catholic, I never learned the Nicene Creed! Catholics (at least in my experience) use the Apostles’ Creed – and use it only as the first prayer to be said when reciting the Rosary.
And Catholics believe in all sorts of angels, saints, and demons, but are not taught to think of them as “divine.” Again solely from my experience, the term “divine” is supposed to refer only to the Trinity, and only the members of the Trinity should be “worshipped.” But in practice, Catholics come dangerously close to worshipping the “Blessed Mother” and an assortment of saints.
I’ve always found it hard to understand how the concept of three “persons” in God is supposed to differ from the much more familiar (from paganism and, I think, Hinduism) concept of three *aspects*. I’ve guessed that when the term “aspects” is used, it’s understood that the deity can only be in one of those personas at any given time, not two or more simultaneously. Is that correct?
But Christan doctrine (at least as I learned it) seems to claim the “Father” and his “Son” have both existed eternally. And claiming that amounts to redefining the terms “father” and “son”! The Apostles’ Creed doesn’t even say the Son was “begotten.”
By the way, didn’t the ancients ever stop to wonder what God was *doing* throughout His supposed eternal existence? If He and nothing else existed? He seems to have occupied Himself solely by creating inferior beings (first angels, then humans), so He could demand that they worship Him, then sit back and enjoy being worshipped. A ridiculous concept.
It makes more sense – at least to me – to postulate that a Being whose existence *is* “the beginning of time” would be *constantly growing, changing, developing*.
Yes, three aspects of God is very different from three persons. At one and the same time there are three individual, distinct, persons, who are all God; but there is only one God.
I bought your book and also How God Became Jesus book in Kindle format. I only buy in Kindle format. One thing I noticed is that depending on the position one takes, the probable dates of Gospel Books vary by 20 years or more. While reading the book, I thought it would be helpful why you could write articles on why you think it’s more likely why each of four Gospel Books were written at so and so time period.
Really? I’m not aware that there’s *that* much dispute about the dates of the Gospels, outside the ranks of very conservative evangelicals/fundamentalists.
Let me mention one example which I came across recently. (I was a bit surprised by this, and it certainly doesn’t come from someone I would consider a “conservative/evangelical”.)
Marcus Borg recently published an edition[?] of the NT called “Evolution of the Word” (by Harper One) in which the books are set in chronological order. (The translation used is the NSRV. The book begins with a couple introductory chapters discussing the general issues of chronological dating, and the usefulness of such an edition. Each book is preceded by an Introduction –typically 3-5 pages– discussing the date of the book and giving a brief overview.)
The book has been an interesting read. And most of the datings seem to be unsurprising. The one exception is that of Luke/Acts which is placed somewhat later than expected, i.e. “In the first decade or two of the first century”.
I won’t try to reproduce Borg’s summary of the arguments in support if this dating, but here are a couple points:
– Borg says that there is probably still a “slight majority” of scholars that still favors the earlier date.
– However, there is a “growing movement” towards this later date.
– To _ very_ briefly summarize the arguments Borg gives for this dating: 1] “the parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity” as represented in Luke/Acts is “too advanced” to easily support the earlier date; and 2] there may possibly be evidence that the author knew the works of Josephus.
Unfortunately the book includes no references to allow the reader to follow up on the arguments. (Specifically the only notes included are the standard footnotes accompanying the NSRV text.)
(Finally, to give Borg his due he admits that in this one case he has strayed from his self-imposed guideline of using the “consensus” dating, or lacking one, the “majority” opinion.)
Anyway, I thought I’d mention this.
(Now, back to reading “How Jesus Became God”.)
Yes, I noticed significant differences in time frames between you and fundamentalists. What I don’t understand are the reasons for this difference. Is it just two different guesses, or are there some good reasons for the time frames?
Really? I thought Simon Gathercole and I *agreed* on dates. What are you referring to? (I haven’t relistened to the broadcast).
I’m glad you write books for the general public (in addition to your books for more advanced readers). Too often scholars write papers and books that are pretty much just read by other scholars. The information stays in the ivory tower black hole instead of getting out to the public where it is most needed.
I’m enjoying reading my copy of “How Jesus Became God”. Thanks for writing it – especially in a way that more people can understand it and benefit from it.
It was a really good interview, Professor! Thank you for sharing it with us.
Dr Ehrman: I am halfway through your new book. Time for a rest and read your blog. So far, well done; its hard to put down
A further thought…I have the idea (not sure it’s correct) that according to Catholic teaching, every human whose soul has arrived in heaven is technically a “saint.” Formal canonization of a saint involves the Church’s declaring *certainty* that the person’s soul has reached heaven, and isn’t still in purgatory. I’m *sure* their teaching is that all souls in purgatory will eventually wind up to heaven.
Congratulations for how you can declaim the Nicene creed from memory! The local Pastor here couldn’t do better!! 😉
P.S. I have been reading “How Jesus Became God” and, as usual, I have great admiration and envy for how you critically examine crucial questions and write so clearly. I am eager to get to the part of the book that explains how you changed your view about when the early Christians starting believing that Jesus was/is God. I am also eager to read about the “visions.” I practiced psychiatry for 4 decades and frequently saw patients having auditory hallucinations. Less frequently, I saw patients having visual hallucinations and these visual hallucinations were almost always caused by illicit drugs or medication side effects. I never, ever saw a group of people having similar visions even though I appreciate your discussion about people having visions of the virgin Mary. So, in essence, I am not yet convinced that “visions” are the most probable explanation of the Resurrection, but will keep as open a mind about it as I can. Moreover, reading about Paul’s conversion (seeing a bright light, passing out, falling down, waking up confused) suggest to me a possible grand mal seizure triggered by some flickering sunshine through some trees.
This might seem weird and off topic, but how are you and how have you been doing? Congratulations on your book. I am going to buy this just because I am so excited to see what made you change your mind about the empty tomb and the early view on Jesus. I wish I could buy a signed a copy. Bart, I am tempted to buy your Loeb Classical Library books on the Apostolic Fathers, but I am kind of confused about what the books are about. I know it sounds stupid, but are they translations of the Greek and you commentating on the work of the Apostolic Fathers?
I’m doing extremely well!
The Loeb volumes contain the Greek texts of the apostolic fathers, with my translations of those texts, with introductions and bibliographies.
With regard to this point:
Over at the Amazon site, in the “comments” section for these books, there a number of complaints where folks had bought the Loeb editions expecting something like a standard “commentary” on the Apostolic Fathers. And were subsequently, well, a bit disappointed with what they got.
(To be fair, I think it’s safe to say that Amazon hasn’t done the best possible job of making this clear in the book’s blurb.)
Yes, I find that amazing, but I guess it’s because I’ve intimately known what the Loebs are for over 35 years, and so I naturally assume it is common knowledge.
About “visions” – I once knew a woman who’d experienced a “vision” of Jesus. It was at a critical time in her life – she gave birth to twin sons, and both infants died. I forget whether the “vision” she claimed to have seen was before the births and deaths (a “warning”) or afterwatd (“consolation”). But she claimed that she woke during the night, saw a “vision” of Jesus in her bedroom mirror (I don’t know how dark the bedroom was), and couldn’t move or speak to wake her sleeping husband. It’s my understanding that this *type* of “vision” is fairly common.
And about strange visual phenomena in general, I also knew a woman who claimed that as a child, she’d “seen” a baby in her and her sisters’ bedroom when no baby could have been there. In this case, the apparition crawled out the door! She took it to be the ghost of a baby brother she’d never known.
By seeing a “Vision” of Jesus, am wondering if really “he” looks much like what we are use to seeing on films, paintings etc. Is there an actual document from the antiquity giving a description of Jesus?
Ah we wish! No, no depictions for centuries.
Bart, I’m reading your book and I appreciate the details with which you back up your argument. Your radio interview was excellent.
Did this radio interviewer give you any of her questions before she started taping the programing? Do most other interviewers do that?
No, these interviews are almost always done “cold,” without knowing the questions in advance. But she stuck pretty much with the substance of the book, which made it much easier for me.
As you’ve mentioned before you’ve certainly had your share of interviews where the interviewer either knew nothing about the book in question or was clearly “lying in wait” for you.
If you don’t mind, could you share a couple of the stranger questions that you’ve been asked during these interviews?
Well, I hate it when you get all prepared for an interview on your book (say, Jesus Interrupted) and instead of having a clue about the book or what it is even *about*, the interviewer asks, “So … why *are* so many people interested in religion today?” Erg… The trick, of course, is to turn the question into something that relates to the book. But it’s not always easy….