Loading...My publisher, HarperOne, asked me to write a 1000-word response to the book that was written in response to How Jesus Became God. As you probably know, the book is called, somewhat expectedly, How God Became Jesus. I have toyed with the idea of giving a chapter-by-chapter response here on the blog. I’ve grown a bit cold to the idea, though, since I’m not sure every chapter of their book really needs a response. I may respond to a couple of the chapters. In the meantime, here’s one response you can read that is, interestingly, written by Daniel Kirk, a professor of NT at the evangelical Fuller Theological Seminary, about one of the better chapters in their book: http://www.jrdkirk.com/2014/04/24/god-became-jesus-part-1-review-evangelical-response-ehrman/
What I give below is the overall response to the book that I wrote for my publisher. We had thought about publishing it somewhere, but I’ve decided to give it here instead.
************************************************************
It is always exciting to publish a book that is considered controversial; it is more exciting when it is thought to be controversial before anyone has read it. But the height of authorial excitement (and intrigue) comes when someone decides to produce a lengthy response to a book without even knowing what is in it.
I can understand why there was a flurry of oppositional activity afoot before How Jesus Became God saw the light of published day. This is a book that deals with an inordinately important issue – important not only for Christian believers but for all of us who are interested in the history of our form of civilization. If Jesus had never been considered to be God, we never would have had Christianity. That in itself is enormous. But consider the other consequences.
If Jesus had remained, in the eyes of his disciples, simply a Jewish preacher who ended up on the wrong side of the law and was crucified for his efforts, his followers would have continued on as a sect within Judaism. There would not have been large scale Gentile conversions to this form of Judaism, any more than there were to other forms of Judaism. If large numbers of Gentiles had not converted to faith in the God-man Jesus, the religion of Jesus would never have grown to be a very sizeable minority within the Roman empire by the beginning of the fourth century – when Christians numbered something like three million persons. If they had not been this significant presence in the Empire, the emperor Constantine would almost certainly not have converted. If the emperor Constantine had not converted, there would not have been the monumental conversions of the fourth century. Without these conversions, Christianity could not have become the state religion of Rome. And as a result, it would never have become the dominant religious, social, cultural, political, and economic force of the West. We would not have had the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Reformation, or Modernity as we know it.
A lot rides on the question of How Jesus Became God.
Evangelical Christian scholars who knew that my book was coming were reasonably certain that they would not like what I had to say, whatever that might be. And so, sight unseen, they agreed to write a response book. I then provided them with copies of my manuscript and they set out to uncover its flaws.
I imagine that to some extent they were disappointed that I didn’t come up with some outlandish claim that, for example, Jesus was not considered God until the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. Instead, I attempt to provide a clear, coherent, and historically cautious story, step by step, of how the divinity of Jesus developed in early Christianity. Of course fundamentalists and hard-core evangelicals will not be comfortable with this kind of historical approach. Among other things, I insist that Jesus did not declare himself to be God or even think that he was God. Just the contrary. Belief in the divinity of Jesus arose only after his death, because some of his disciples came to believe he had been raised from the dead.
But according to standard Christian belief, Jesus knew he was God and said he was God. That belief may be commonsensical to anyone who holds certain theological views affirming the infallibility, or even the complete inerrancy of the Bible, but it does not fare well in light of our historical evidence, as I explain in my book.
Still, the scholars who have produced How God Became Jesus are not fundamentalists, even if they are conservative Christian scholars who toe the theological line. Yet even they would agree that during his lifetime Jesus did not go around declaring that he was the second member of the Trinity. On the other hand, by the fourth century, virtually all Christians of record believed he was the second member of the Trinity. So how does one get from Point A (Jesus’life and teachings) to Point B (the Trinitarian theology of the later church)? There needs to be a narrative of how it happens, and my conservative evangelical detractors need a narrative as much as anyone else.
What surprises me most about their response to my book is that they never provide a coherent narrative – or indeed, any narrative at all. Their objective is much simpler: to poke holes, if possible, in this or that detail of my exposition. I am heartily in favor of a rigorous and reasoned scholarly contretemps about each and every key issue: public debate has long been my modus operandi. But what is the alternative to my narrative? The title of their response book is hopeful, suggesting that Jesus did not become God but that God became Jesus. But where is the historical – or even theological – argument that this is what happened? Possibly it exists somewhere, but not within the confines of their book. It may be that these five authors didn’t have time to put forward a coherent counter-proposal – they were under quite a rush to have the response appear! Possibly they don’t agree among themselves about how it all happened.
But I suspect there is a deeper reason as to why they provide no alternative vision. On one hand, they want to attack my views on historical grounds. But on the other hand, their own view – that Jesus actually was God in the flesh – is not based on historical evidence but on religious beliefs and theological assumptions. It cannot be established by historical methods of inquiry. And so they have resorted to something other than proposing a historical reconstruction. They have decided to deconstruct rather than construct. I think in the long run that’s a pity, because if they had provided a sustained statement about what they really think, readers would have a very easy time indeed recognizing which of the two books is a historical treatment of what happened in the rise of early Christianity and which is simply a restatement of traditional Christian dogma.
Wow…your response zeroed in on the huge weakness in their book. That’s far better than trying to argue point-by-point and chapter-by-chapter with them. Well done, Bart!
Five scholars contract to write a rebuttal book…before they even know what they’re going to rebut! Not an intelligent decision, in my opinion. Not surpisingly, it seems to be the crux of the problem.
Excellent response. I have no desire to read their book. If it was done by those from varying theological assumptions, that would be interesting. But the whole project smells of blatant apologetics.
Dr. Ehrman, in your latests book you have embraced the theory that “high” (i.e.: incarnation) christology is very ancient dating even before Paul. Does that change your views on dating of the Gospel of John at all? One of the common arguments for the late dating of this Gospel is precisely its “advanced” theology which includes a incarnation christology. But if such christology is as old as your book argues, shouldn’t we open the possibility that the Gospel of John might of been composed earlier than we think?
I think there are lots of other reasons still to think John is much later than the other Gospels — but it’s a long story!
Could you direct me to a place where I could learn some of the reasons?
Sorry — reasons for what?
Sorry, I meant the whole argument to date the Gospel of John the way scholars usually do without appealing to its incarnation Christology.
Yes, there are other reasons for dating it late. Among other things, the controversies with “the Jews” looks highly developed. But I should stress that the *kind* of incarnation Christology in John is very different from what you find in Paul.
M.Bird said in HGBJ on page 15:
“Hurtado addresses instead the worship patterns in the early church and what they tell us about the divine status of Jesus. His conclusion is that esrly Christian worship shows a clear veneration of Jesus AS THE GOD OF ISRAEL IN HUMAN FORM.”
Hurtado does not adhere to this notion of God of Israel incarnate in Jesus! Nonsense!..
I’m almost done with the book now, and I’ve been impressed with how you’ve gone out of your way to make room for faith in it–there’s none of this “How can you believe such rubbish?” that you get from the likes of Dawkins and the late Mr. Hitchens. Nobody is being insulted here. You might as well say modern archaeology insults Native Americans by saying their ancestors came here across a land bridge, something none of their religions would agree with. I don’t see any Christians being insulted on their behalf. Do unto others…..?
I don’t agree with every single point you make–my vision of Jesus is a bit different from yours. For example, I question whether he told people he was the Messiah. I think there’s plenty of room for doubt there. Your arguments in this area are strong, but not unassailable. The eagerness for the Messiah to arrive was so great in this period that a figure as charismatic as Jesus would inevitably invite speculation as to whether he was ‘The One.’ The 12 thrones comment is just in Matthew, and we may not have it in its original form, or properly understand its meaning. I do not dismiss the argument out of hand, but I question it.
Also, as a New Yorker, I well remember Menachem Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, an influential leader of the Hasidim in our city. Many of his followers were convinced he was the Jewish Messiah. As far as can be determined, he never at any time said he was, he many times tried to discourage the idea (though I half-suspect he enjoyed the rumors, all the same), and was criticized by other Jewish religious leaders because they felt he must have somehow encouraged this belief. But he’s been gone a while now, and nobody has come forward to say he ever made the slightest intimation he was the promised one, even in private. To me, this is modern evidence that a Messiah cult can easily be created around a living man who is not actually trying to convince people he is the Messiah. His denials are simply not believed. And because he’s trying to inspire them to believe more deeply in their faith (and in his interpretation of that faith), his denials will, by their nature, not be that believable–since of course he does believe the Messiah is coming, and only God could know who it’s going to be. Jesus reportedly said no man born of woman was greater than John the Baptist, and we can be reasonably sure he did say that. The Messiah would, by his nature, be greater than John (unless John was Messiah, as many believed). Jesus was born of a woman. I take that as an indirect denial.
I myself am no longer a believer in the true sense–raised Catholic, and have felt a continuing identification with that faith, even while forced to reject the supernatural elements of it. And not believing in the words of the Apostle’s Creed, I don’t feel right about going to Mass and pronouncing them. I also disagree with the Church on many social issues, but that’s true of many devout Catholics. For me, the problem is that while Jesus the man is more important to me than Jesus the god ever was, you don’t worship a man. You can learn from him.
I read about people like Teresa of Avila, Francis of Assisi, and Dorothy Day–and Pope Francis (whom even some atheists seem to like!), and I feel proud of them. And other religious people, like Dr. King and Gandhi, of course. It’s clear that to be a person of true faith is something special and powerful (and rare), and how much we owe to the genuine luminaries across history. But I can’t pretend to believe what I don’t believe. It’s been clear to me for a while that Jesus wasn’t God, and didn’t think that he was. So reading your book has helped clarify some important points that I didn’t understand, even after having read a number of other books on the early history of Christianity, including two of yours.
I don’t want us to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There has to be a way for us to retain the valuable things Christianity across the ages has contributed–and all the other belief systems our ancestors created to light their way through dark times. There are many dark times ahead of us, we can have no doubt. We’re going to need people of faith to survive them. But for our past to be a understanding, not confusion and division, we have to know what really happened, as much as possible. So thank you for helping in this.
I hope you will provide responses to their specific arguments…because I’m curious as to what they said, but would never consider reading their book!
One thing I’ve thought of… I imagine you’ve been criticized for saying the living Jesus “didn’t think he was divine.” I can understand your reasoning (based on the Synoptics, not accepting John as reliable): if he was willing to tell his disciples he was the Messiah, he would also have told them if he believed he was something more than that. You’ve acknowledged that he could have been divine without, in his human lifetime, knowing it. But I’ve realized there’s another possibility: it could be argued that he didn’t tell the disciples he was something more than the Messiah because they would have been so awed – for all practical purposes, *crippled* by awe of him.
I don’t believe that, of course, any more than you do. But I think it’s a possibility you should have acknowledged.
And I still dislike this sentence: “We would not have had the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Reformation, or Modernity as we know it.” It’s unclear as to what you’re implying, even if you’re no longer following it up with “We might all still be pagans.” That we’d never have developed the printing press? Never progressed beyond the technology of ancient Rome?
History would undoubtedly have been unimaginably *different*…and I think that’s all you should have said.
My view is that one could think of lots and lots of reasons why Jesus didn’t tell his disciples he was God even though he thought he was; but you’re still left with the question of what evidence there is that he thought he was….
Yes, I know you don’t like my sentence! I’m NOT arguing that history would not have happened, or that things would have been worse. They may have been MUCH MUCH BETTER! Maybe they would have developed technologies that allowed them to discover electricity in 537 CE! But whether better or worse, they would have been almost inconceivably DIFFERENT. That’s my only point.
I’m glad we have Freedom of Speech and the separation of Church and State. I’m sure Dr. Ehrman’s detractors would prefer to be able to just make him recant rather than having to go through the trouble of coming up with a narrative of their own. But at least they still have demagogy.
Is their response worth reading? Do they poke any big holes in your theory? Do they acknowledge any surprise that you’re now a belated member in good standing of the Early High Christology Club?
No, no surprise. And no real surprises. I you want to see what some of the best evangelical scholars would say in response, it’s worth reading. But I personally found it on the whole disappointing….
Your reply is a very courteous and restrained response to having been called a “sloppy” historian among other things. With regard to your critics: By their fruit, you shall know them.
Obviously, what scares and offends people is the idea that humans may have made up the idea that Jesus was/is God regardless of whether this was done quickly or progressively or in different ways and rates by different groups.
I read Kirk’s 4-part series on your book as well as his article on the Bird and his colleagues book. Kirk makes good points, but his series is a little too complicated for me to grasp completely and gets a little tedious to read. I think that has been one of the problems with many of the responses to your book. The responses get way too complicated. Sometimes, things are complicated. Other times, complicated writing means that people just don’t have a clear view of what they are saying.
We have here a dialogue of the deaf…which I assume was, and is, half expected. Bart has been quite clear as to the historical approach that he takes to subject of Christianity in general and remains silent on the matter of faith because there is no debate with faith.
Nevertheless, a historian of any period or subject is well aware how difficult it is to arrive at the truth. The recent past, despite the vastly greater degree of documentation, still eludes a definitive definition of exactly what happened, let alone answering the questions of “why”, “to what effect” and “does it matter’. Antiquity is extraordinarily difficult given the paucity of resources, and the significant gap in mentalities between ourselves and then. Having modern readers and historians really grasp how different mentalities were not that long ago is a struggle, let alone the very alien cultures of two millennia ago. (Think on the evergreen controversies over the commencement and conduct of the First World War.) Obviously, one must try, notwithstanding these very real difficulties. Bart has so done.
Those who wish to debate the issues raised by Bart need to do so in the same arena. If they already have the answer from the perspective of faith there is no debate. Hence the dialogue of the deaf comment above. I am astonished that the rebuttal book was written so hurriedly and before the publication of Bart’s book. That is not the sound approach to an academic argument. I guess that might work as a polemic, but then polemic is not the relevant or appropriate arena of combat. I take it we must await a more reasoned critique.
I may respond to a couple of the chapters.
Please do; and thank you.
Great piece Bart. In your view, who has attempted set out a historical narrative of ‘how god became jesus’ and how well did they do? What might constitute a worthy line of argument?
I don’t think it can be done historically. But theologians can do it, of course! And many of *them* would argue that God became Jesus by means of the incarnation.
Dr Ehrman
are there many pagan greek words which have been redefined by christianity?
Great question. I suppose “baptism” and “anointed one” would be two prime candidates. (the words aren’t “pagan,” but they commonly get used in pagan contexts.)
That’s a pretty devastating review of the first few chapters by Daniel Kirk. I hadn’t planned on reading the response but am interested if you think they made any good points that you feel are fair historical arguments rather than theological reinforcements to induce readers to stay far far away from anything you write?
Most of the arguments are attacks on my historical views by assuming counter-historical-views (not all).
I followed the link above and read Kirk’s critique of that chapter of “How God Became Jesus.” Wow! The author of the chapter (I read the review last night, and I’ve forgotten his name) was so snide and mocking – disgusting! As Kirk said, the guy was trying to make fun of you, but wound up making *himself* look like an ignorant fool. I can see why you might not feel a need to provide a chapter-by-chapter “refutation” of this crap.
I was impressed that Kirk, despite being an evangelical (a term I admit I don’t fully understand), gave *your* book such a good review. I found it interesting that one of his main disagreements with you dealt with the “empty tomb” story.
Personally, I can’t accept the idea that the Sanhedrin as a whole might have decided to give Jesus a decent burial. Kirk did say it might have been only one member. But either way, it involves the very people who’d wanted Jesus executed – or one of them – later “relenting” to some degree. I think it makes more sense that if a member of the Sanhedrin provided the initial burial – meant to be temporary – he’d been a secret sympathizer with Jesus’s ideas all along.
Dr Ehrman
It may be too soon after the publication of HJBG for a good answer to this question, but are you aware of –or can you suggest to the reader– a response which, while “disagreeing” with the argument(s) in HJBG, might be considered more suitable (perhaps “substantial” is a better word here) on scholarly ground.
(I guess, in part, what I’m asking is that I –as one outside the field– would be interested in seeing what such a response would look like.)
I’m sure there are lots of responses on teh Internet, but I haven’t looked at them. There is nothing else in print that I’m aware of yet.
I’d like to thank you for posting the link above to the article by Daniel Kirk. Aside from the content of the article itself there was one sentence that caught me eye.
After listening to your earlier debate with James White, a debate which was purportedly a scholarly discussion of a historical topic, I think it’s safe to say that Dr White showed his hand when he characterized such techniques as (quote) “…weapons used against the faith”.
Compare this to the following statement in Dr Kirk’s summary:
“In short, my assessment is that an evangelicalism that has Ehrman as its chief foe is in better shape than an evangelicalism that has Bird as its great champion.”
The fact is that for some of us it’s useful to be reminded occasionally that there are evangelical scholars who do have things to say that should be listened to. Thank you Dr Kirk.
A few things. I’m reading this book (How God became Jesus) right now. It’s hard not to get frustrated. Michael Bird made a complete idiot out of himself. Is he trying to come across as a serious scholar by using childish insults? Also, the chapters are really nit picky and presuppose that everything in the Bible is 100% historically accurate, which is obviously a problematic idea. Probably the best chapter in this book, and the only one so far that actually attempts to deal with history is the chapter by Craig Evans on whether Jesus was buried in a tomb. Even if Jesus was really buried in a tomb, we don’t know where this tomb is, do we? We can’t go to it today and see if it’s really empty. Even when I was a fundy believer, I never understood the apologetic argument that said “We know jesus rose from the dead because of the empty tomb.” This is a ridiculous argument! The empty tomb is part of the story! What evidence do we have today for this empty tomb? This is just an assertion without facts. A wiser man than me said this argument is similar to saying that “the land of oz must exist because where would the yellow brick road lead to?”
Ha!! That’s a great line!!
I’ll give Michael Bird credit for something. What he says about Rahm Emanuel is true. In all of Chicago’s history, he might be that city’s worst mayor ever. It makes me all the more glad that I moved far, far away from there.
I know why “How Jesus Became God” gets it wrong re the synoptics … it’s ’cause you weren’t using the oldest manuscript of Mark. 🙂
http://bricecjones.weebly.com/1/post/2014/05/the-first-century-gospel-of-mark-josh-mcdowell-and-mummy-masks-what-they-all-have-in-common.html
A question… Is it known whether, in a province like Palestine, only the Prefect could issue a death sentence for *any* type of crime he recognized as “capital”?
I’m thinking about, say, “robbery” – given that the two other men said to have been crucified on the same day as Jesus might really have been mere robbers, not political rebels. (When someone else questioned a death sentence for robbery, you said something to the effect of a Prefect’s being free to classify any crimes he chose as punishable by death.) If the men were indeed mere robbers, could the *Sanhedrin* have sentenced *them* to be crucified? For a non-political offense?
What I’m thinking is that crucifixions *in Jerusalem* for *political crimes* (planned or attempted insurrection) may have been rare, since the Prefect was only there during Passover Weeks. If *other* crucifixions took place there (rather than in Caesarea) fairly often, the routine associated with them may have been somewhat lax. And it wouldn’t necessarily have been tightened for the different-type execution of Jesus: he was, after all, a near “nobody,” whom Pilate had probably never heard of before that day.
I’m thinking, of course, about the plausibility of someone’s needing only a small bribe to claim his body. And there are other possibilities, such as a long-standing tradition (predating Pilate) of crucifixions not being performed or bodies left on crosses on the Sabbath, *in that one city*.
“Robbers” in these accounts refers to LESTAI — people engaged in guerilla warfare. So they were probably all political charges. But my understanding is that only Roman authorities could order execution. Whether the prefect allowed others to act in his stead on occasion, I don’t know.
Having left Christianity myself, the longer I have been away the more I see that a great many of the most ‘fervent’ are not interested in facts, just their own emotional state.
What about the fact that Paul, Peter and John, believed in the resurrection and claimed they
saw Jesus.
I”m not sure what you’re asking. I talk about that in my book.
Bird responded, in blog like fashion, to this post.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2014/05/ehrmans-response-to-the-bird-response-book/
Larry Hurtado has written a review of your recent book:
http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/how-jesus-became-god-per-ehrman/
I think readers of this blog should be notified of Hurtado’s review, and will be interested in your response.
Yes, I’m going back and forth with Larry now about some of things he said, and will probably discuss his review on the blog.
Hello!
Your thoughts on Isaiah 7:14, with respect to a prophesy in the old Hebrew bible that a virgin will birth a babe – presumably the Messiah, and name it Immanuel (meaning “God is with us”)??.
Here is the verse from King James.
“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
Since this was written before Jesus, and Jesus was a religious Jew, I presume both Jesus and his Apostles and others would have been aware of it. Hence is it not entirely possible that the belief that Jesus was God (i.e. God Almighty, equal to the Father etc.) may have began as early as when the story of the Virgin birth was first promoted?
I suppose the question is – did Jesus or his follower’s during Jesus’s life testify that Jesus was born of a virgin (which would then be akin to a statement that Jesus was at least part of God), or was this a story conceived after Jesus’s death by one of the gospel writers?
I would value your opinion on this one, the question doesn’t seem to be raised in either your book or the responses book. It seems to center on the question – How did Jesus become God (or vice versa).
Kind Regards
The idea that Jesus was born of a virgin cannot be found earlier than the Gospels of Matthew and Luke — that is, not until 50-55 years after Jesus’ death (80-85 years after his birth).
Thanks for replying so quickly!
But as you have said many times in your book, Jesus most certainly did – and all historians seem to agree – at least claim during his ministry to be the Messiah…. and by Isaiah 7:14 it was known before Jesus’s time that the Messiah would necessarily be birthed by a Virgin… and the son of this Virgin would be named “Immanuel” (meaning God with us).
So in other words, any Messiah once deemed “successful” (which in Jesus’s case would have occurred following his alleged post mortum appearances) – in fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, would have arguably been interpreted as a God figure by some, if not many at that time. No?
Does this not ignite a hypothesis for a potentially (and maybe likely?) very very very early belief of Jesus as God – in a very high Christology sense, immediately following his resurrection, in accordance with common Jewish scriptural belief.??
Any comment?
Thanks
The problem is that no one imagined that Isaiah 7:14 was referring to a messiah, until the later Christians claimed it was. (The messiah is never mentioned in Isaiah 7)
Hi Bart
I guess the next thing to consider along the same line of reasoning is Isaiah 9:6 – 7.
Most scholars I believe felt this was more definately an ancient Messianic Jewish Prophesy. – before Jesus. It must be important, as it is the verse I believe quoted by Linus in Charlie Brown Christmas! Also, some scholars believe the child of Isaiah 9:6 – 7 is the same as Isaiah 14:7.
For your ease of reference, here are the Verses,
6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice From that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.
This, on plain reading sounds very Messianic, especially the part about “upon the throne of David and over his kingdom”. The fact that the child is called “A son”, “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” is pretty close to the trinitarian theology – the highest potential Christology.
So – again, my argument goes
A Messiah by Jewish prophesy of Isaiah 9:6 – 7 prior to Christ would be by all accounts “God”.
Jesus was a declared Messianic candidate during his ministry.
Jesus was declared a successful Messiah at his alleged Post Mortem appearences.
Hence, believe that Jesus was God – even in a trinitarian sense, could be established as early as the first Easter.
Counter thoughts ???
Isaiah 9 is usually taken to refer to an actual historical king in Isaiah’s day; notice that he is talking about someone who has already been born. Only later did Christians start saying that it was a messianic prediction.
I read some background on Isaiah 9:6 – 7.
I would agree that it is only Christians (both historians and theologians) who plead the case that Isaiah 9 is a prophesy to Jesus’s Messiah-ship, while Jews, Muslims and Secular Historians tend to make the case – as you have stated, that as originally written (i.e. by Isaiah) that the verse simply declared of the coming of a king in Isaiah’s day.
But here is the concern, regardless of what Isaiah 9 (and other potential old testament Messianic verses) actually meant when originally written, people – even perhaps in ancient times – who wished to believe in and elevate Jesus, could have very well saw these verses as a prophesy which Jesus fulfilled.
After Jesus’s alleged post mortum appearances, the apostles and others would have been a buzz to explain things , and they would have looked to the Jewish text and prophesies for answers. Some, perhaps a minority (who knows) may have saw Isaiah 9 as modern Christian’s do, as a prophesy relating and fulfilled by Jesus. The wording of Isaiah 9 – if taken in a Jesus context – would certainly present a line of argumentation that Jesus was one heck of high level being (“Everlasting father etc.).
So I guess what I’m stating is, that ideas which could have transformed Jesus into a God figure may have been supplied by pre-Jesus Jewish references – even if those verses were being taken by the earliest Christians as out of context. There would have been a need to reconcile the Hebrew bible statements and prophesies with the believed in resurrection of Jesus, Isaiah 9 could have very likely been one of those verses.
This concept is supported by the apostle Paul in Romans 1:1-4.
1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
Note the part “promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures”.
I don’t see why there would have been a delay in entertaining – even a misreading – of pre Jesus Jewish literature which could be applied to Jesus which would elevate him – so perhaps the idea of Jesus as God (with a capital G) came very very early – even before Paul as implied in Romans.
I believe Bart you also said in your book that you agreed that the view of high Christology may have been very early (i.e. pre Pauline) – based on the view that differing groups had differing ideas about Christ at differing times.
Moreover, some Bibles translate Isaiah 9:6 as that the child in question will be born (and was not born already), hence making Isaiah 9:6-7 a much strong prophetic candidate, and likely a Messianic prophesy.
The argument for this variant translation is justified in Isaiah 1:1 – where Isaiah states that what he is describing in the verses to follow relate to visions he has had, and hence should not be construed as a historic commentary.
So when the verse is directly translated as that the child “Is born” – this should – in context of Isaiah 1:1 arguably not be taken as was born when the prophet spake, but as a prophetic vision, as the events of the future passed before Isaiah’s mind. The timing of the arrival of the child was not declared. This makes most sense as well, as Isaiah goes on to say that the child’s name “will be called” .. which implies the child has not arrived yet, at his writing.
The problem is that Isaiah often *does* talk about things that are *going* to happen in the future tense. So it is usual to assume that present and past tenses refer to his own time, and future to the future.
Thanks again for your fast response Bart. I really appreciate your professionalism and taking the time to go through this with me.
I’m far from an expert, but I have read that the Hebrew language at the time of of Isaiah 9:6 didn’t actually have a definite “past tense” and “future tense” as we do in English, so this muddies the water a bit with regards to the accuracy of the English translations.
However I agree with you that in the original Hebrew the “is born” statment is made in what is denoted in Hebrew as the “Perfect” sense which at least “suggests” a completed action.
I appreciate your claim that Isaiah in other parts speak of events more clearly in the past tense (I suppose the “imperfect sense”?), which strengthens the interpretation of Isaiah 9:6 (i.e. “is born” in the “perfect sense”) is refering to the contemporary birth of a king – most likely Hezekial – of Isaiah’s time.
What’s confusing however is that it has been attested that Isaiah also uses the “Perfect” (or present) tense for events which have clearly not yet happened as well!. A prime example of this is Isaiah 5:13 which states that Isreal had already gone into exile (galut) when that clearly had not happened yet.
Moreover in Isaiah 9:7 it is prophesized that the Child would establish the throne of David “forever” which Hezekial clearly did not do. So in hindsight to the early Christians it is quite likely that they were still waiting for the “Child” – which arguably could have been fulfilled by the resurrected Jesus – who even in death was actually stil living and had been exhaulted to God “in power” to very soon accomplish the task (i.e. overthrough Rome and establish an everlasting kingdom etc.).
Again, regardless of Isaiah 9:6 – the comment of Paul in Romans 1:2 shows that Paul’s belief’s in Jesus (i.e. at least a pre-existent heavenly being elevated to God in power following the resurrection) did not just pop into his head but are based on prior Jewish propehtic scriptures written before Jesus was even born.
I would gather that the Trinity concept likely was a disserment which evolved and took time, however I imagine the early father’s considered Isaiah 9:6 (i.e. particularly the Messianic “Everlasting Father” statement) prominately – it is just too much of a coincidence. I doubt that Isaiah meant that only the Child’s “name” would be Everlasting Father, as four names were listed in Isaiah 9:6 and certainly Isaiah did not expect the Child to literally have four names (i.e. the four items were likely attributes).
I feel like we have just about exhausted the topic, have I made any errors and do you have anything further to add?
Cheers
Yes, Hebrew has two “tenses.” The Perfect tense indicates actions that are already completed; the Imperfect indicates actions that are not yet completed. In the verse in question, the giving of birth is already completed.
Hello Again!,
Here are a couple other verses from the old testament which seem to have been applied post hoc by the early Christian community to come to understand the nature of Jesus following the perceived miracle of his resurrection.
Firstly, Zechariah 2:10-11.
“10 “Sing for joy and be glad, O daughter of Zion; for behold I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” declares the Lord.
11 “Many nations will join themselves to the Lord in that day and will become My people. Then I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me to you.”
What’s interesting about these verses is that it supports the Trinitarian view, as the “Lord” (i.e. God Almighty) declares he himself is coming, and then mysteriously goes on to say he is sending himself by himself.
Secondly Proverbs 8:22-31
“22 “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
23 “From everlasting I was established,
From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth.
24 “When there were no depths I was brought forth,
When there were no springs abounding with water.
25 “Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills I was brought forth;
26 While He had not yet made the earth and the fields,
Nor the first dust of the world.
27 “When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,
28 When He made firm the skies above,
When the springs of the deep became fixed,
29 When He set for the sea its boundary
So that the water would not transgress His command,
When He marked out the foundations of the earth;
30 Then I was beside Him, as a master workman;
And I was daily His delight,
Rejoicing always before Him,
31 Rejoicing in the world, His earth,
And having my delight in the sons of men”
At least two early Christians (i.e. John and Paul) have writings which are entirely consistent with this Proverb as they describe Jesus. The Proverb again seems to support a Trinitarian perspective as was adopted in the Nicene creed and certainly at least supports that the figure “I” was a pre-existent eternal being.
So what’s my point?.
Following the resurrection appearances of Jesus (and I think you would agree) there must have been a lot of confusion amongst the earliest Christians as to what it all meant, and certainly there would have been a collage of assertions and beliefs with each set of beliefs would have taken on its own group of follower’s.
However in your book you hold that in general the earliest beliefs were mostly Adoptionist type Exaltation views (as evidence by the Synoptic Gospels) and then only by random mistakes in story telling, and building up Jesus for no good reason to color the story in development of a heroic legend (not very flattering to Christians by the way) – higher levels of Christology evolved. You have dealt with the fact that Paul’s writings demonstrating high Christology before the Synoptic Gospels was a mere variance which showed that different Christians held different views and differing times.
I can agree with your view except that it seems to me that you have COMPLETELY LEFT OUT ANY REMARKS ABOUT HOW THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS WOULD HAVE LOOKED TO THEIR HEBREW BIBLE FOR PROPHETIC EXPLANATIONS REGARDING THE RISEN JESUS. What is further interesting (and I don’t understand as I would think it would help their cause) is that in the counter book “How Jesus became God”, this topic is also completely avoided from the Christian Author’s – (unless I slept through a chapter?)
If one considers the old testament prophesies as source material which could be applicable to Jesus then it seems to me a very high Christology would have had at least the potential to develop early and not just by mistakes and legend making as you have implied. I’m not suggesting that the lower mere adoptionist / exhalation views didn’t also exist early, but I questions your overall assertion that the later evolved into the former. It seems more likely that the two views (incarnation vs. adoption/ exhalation) arose side by side and arguments ensued until a forced conclusion at the Council of Nicea.
Anything you can say to sway my opinion?
By the way – it is really great that an Atheist historian like yourself has taken such a passion towards studying Jesus! I could never trust the opinion of a Chistian historian – as their views are too biased IMO. Your work does a great service!
I certainly think that after the followers of Jesus came to believe in the resurrection they appealed to Scripture in support of their views. I’ve written about that since the mid 90s!
I find it very useful for my religious literacy studying the Bible (both the Jewish and Christian versions) as a non-Christian and non-Jew!
Bart, which Bible translation is more accurate or reliable in your opinion: the Masoretic or Greek texts?
For the Hebrew Bible, I assume? Usually it is thought that the Hebrew (which comes down to us as the Masoretic), in most places, has teh most ancient form of the text.