(10 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading...I am celebrating the ten year anniversary of the blog (April 18, 2022) by reposting the ten previous posts made on April 18 of each year. I am now up to 2014. On that day I posted a response to someone’s critique of my then just published How Jesus Became God. I was a bit testy. Who, me? Here’s what I said.
******************************
The responses to How Jesus Became God are starting to appear, and I must say, I find the harshest ones bordering on the incredible. Do people think that it is acceptable to attack a book that they haven’t read – or at least haven’t had the courtesy to try to understand?
Some of the reviewers are known entities, such as the Very Rev. Robert Barron, a Roman Catholic evangelist and commentator who has a wide following. His full response is available at http://wordonfire.org/Written-Word/articles-commentaries/April-2014/Why-Jesus-is-God–A-Response-to-Bart-Ehrman.aspx I find it very disappointing. Here is his opening gambit:
******************************
“In this most recent tome, Ehrman lays out what is actually a very old thesis, going back at least to the 18th century and repeated ad nauseam in skeptical circles ever since, namely, that Jesus was a simple itinerant preacher who never claimed to be divine and whose “resurrection” was in fact an invention of his disciples who experienced hallucinations of their master after his death. Of course Ehrman, like so many of his skeptical colleagues across the centuries, breathlessly presents this thesis as though he has made a brilliant discovery. But basically, it’s the same old story. When I was a teenager, I read British Biblical scholar Hugh Schonfield’s Passover Plot, which lays out the same narrative, and just a few months ago, I read Reza Aslan’s Zealot, which pursues a very similar line, and I’m sure next Christmas or Easter I will read still another iteration of the theory.”
******************************
So I have to ask in all seriousness: has the Very Reverend Robert Barron actually read my book?
Where to start? How about with
Interested in this and related topics? Join the blog! It doesn’t cost much and every penny of your small membership fee goes to charity! Click here for membership options
As a matter of fact, I think that this catholic guy was the testy one! By the way, you can tell someone’s wrong, when he’s that testy without (in actuality) having being provoked.
Your post illustrates succinctly the problem with much modern-day social and political discourse.
Greetings from Israel!
I am a new member.
I am listening to all 24 lectures about “How Jesus Became God” for the second time. Yep…addicted. I can’t tell you how brilliant and exciting they sound to me. I’m a Jew(ess), BTW. I also bought just about all your books and I’m in the process of reading them.
I have a question:
why do practically all New Testament scholars repeatedly used the term ” Palestine” for the land where Jesus grew up? (Syria) Palestina , though present in ancient writings, was not used until approximately the year
135CE, when Hadrian renamed the region, after destroying all memory of a Jewish ( Judean) land and inhabitants, honoring the Philistines, one of Israel’s ancient arch- enemies. Surely, Jesus was not Palestinian and he never lived in Palestine. There was no country or region named Palestine in the whole of the 1st century. Additionally, nothing like this is done with regards to other countries.
The question : is this because it is easier to use the term Palestine, albeit anachronistically? Or has there been a scholarly decision about this? Might it be political in some of the cases?
Thanks!
Gisele Ben-Dor
http://www.giseleben-dor.com
Yes, I know. I”ve actually just recently stopped using the term. It’s really a problematic situation since there is no easy way to refer to the lands of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee as a kind of unit otherwise. I’ve tried “Jewish Homeland” but that’s a bit awkward and not quite right. And “Israel” but that’s not either. But I will admit that I”ve given up on “Palestine” over the past two years; it words for the mid-second century and later, but not for the first; and so I just use other terms (usually Israel and Jewish Homeland). (The use of Palestine has almost NEVER driven by political consideratoins: it was standard usage for a very long time before the modern political situation emerged, because of waht became the standard Roman nomenclature, even though eveyrone knew it was anachronistic. You’re right: it was simply convenient. But, well, it’s time to move on from it. Probably well past time. Maybe I should post on it.)
Thanks so much! Yes, I see the difficulty. When you say ” the Land of Israel” , though, as you do at times, it sounds just right. Of course, it was a land already devastated and constantly conquered. “Israel” proper , in fact, had long been exiled by Assyria. I think I may have also heard you say “ancient Israel”. And there were some other historically correct terms.
I don’t know if I agree with Fr. Barron’s conclusions about the Bible, but I can’t quite blame him for his conception of the book’s basic thesis, and his claim that this basic thesis (at least by the publishers if not the author) is presented to the book-buying public as new information. That’s because the Amazon blurb for How Jesus became God does say “reveals” twice, and generally implies that what is being revealed about Jesus is the (novel) product of 8 years of research.
Thanks for posting. I’m Catholic and taught at a Jesuit Catholic school for over 20 years. I still have copies of the email response I got from you about an earlier book on text criticism. Not a fan of Barron. A friend of mine and recent convert had to sit through his videos in catechism class. Too bad he didn’t read more closely. You autographed my copy a few years back at USF. Passover Plot reminds me of an episode of Gilligan’s Island where the professor drugs Gilligan to appear dead in order to get him out of a challenge from a native girl’s jealous intended. But when they try to send the natives away saying that they will bury Gilligan, the native man responds earnestly: “We do not bury; we burn!” Hilarity ensues, of course, as Gilligan awakes on the funeral pyre and they think it’s a miracle.
Greg, Tampa
Dear Dr. Ehrman – I am a new subscriber to your blog, although not at all new to your books, which I have enjoyed (and been enlightened by) for years. But as a new subscriber, I really appreciate you reposting these entries! It gives me a chance to see some of what has transpired before I signed up without scrolling through years of posts.
As for the “Very Reverend” Barron’s critique, there is another possible reason he found your book so threatening: his own faith is actually on very shaky ground, of which he is in complete denial. His criticism smacks of protesting too much, and of needing to demonize the one who is making his state of denial more difficult to maintain.
BTW, I don’t blame you for being testy!
This lack of intellectual integrity by leading Christian apologists is one of the wedges that gradually pried me away from the Christian religion (just one wedge of many). If you blindly attack or have to use fallacies like a straw man argument to win your point then you must have a very weak position.
Reverent?
Ha! Sorry ’bout that.
I love your book,”How Jesus became God”. It is an interesting read for all. Here’s my inquiry though: ” I have intelligent Christian friends who are scholars of early Christianity who agree with almost all of my analysis.” When you say this, I ask myself,if this is true what you say, and I sense your honesty and integrity in your words, then why do these (scholars) remain Christians ? Neil De Grasse Tyson made a similar comment that intrigued him about scientists. He said, emphasis added, “That most scientists are non-believers,atheists or whatever else you want to call them. He continues,” what puzzles me, is why are the top two or three percent of the elite scientists,the cream of the crop, believers” ? I wonder that too!!!!
Veritas, I would consider myself a student, not a scholar of the New Testament and I’m also a scientist and believe or actually I “know” in the Greek experiential sense. Can’t go too far in 200 words, but religions in my view are a structure that ideally helps us align with the Divine that we experience. And we pick one that works for us (at least that we can tolerate).
I’ve never really believed (nor felt comfortable with) the notion that science and religion must be mutually exclusive. If you practice religion and science in a particular way, I see no reason why science and religion cannot coexist within the same person (psyche?). But clearly, that involves some letting go, tolerance and modernizing.
I am curious about this too! Mostly, even if these scholarly people are believers (or just spiritual), do they still subscribe to what’s laid out in the Nicene Creed? As in, that Jesus was sent to die for our sins?
I assume that, if so, it means they believe the later Gospels that come after Mark: where Jesus’s words become less apocalyptic and more theological. I guess they don’t think those stories about Jesus were made up by later followers?
I’m pretty sure people like Barron really do believe in teh entire Nicene Creed (not just the bit of Jesus coming dying for salvation) and that he reconciles all the Gospel accounts to one another; he would probably say that the Gospel stories reflect historical events.
Bishop Barron (he’s now an auxiliary Bishop in Los Angeles), like most apologists, was performing for his own audience, assuring them that they could rest untroubled by the work of critical scholars. But Barron was being disingenuous. He taught systematic theology for twenty years in Europe and the United States. Unless he spent all his time with his head under a rock, it’s impossible he didn’t know the work of critical scholars like yourself or Father Raymond Brown.
Bart Ehrman, author of How Jesus Became God
There are people who do not want to interact with historical data and serious interpretations, but instead want to take potshots to make the “faithful” think that all is well with the world and that their preconceived notions about religion cannot be shaken by historical inquiry.
My view is that my book should have ZERO impact on intelligent, informed, Christian belief.
Steve Campbell, author of the well-reviewed book Historical Accuracy, that brings facts and self-examination to sacred scripture
All IS well with preconceived notions about religion when people read How Jesus Became God.
Wow, why would Dr. Ehrman’s outcome be the same outcome he criticizes?
Did you send a response to him?
If so, did he respond back?
Nope! Didn’t see the point really….
I’ve watched a few Robert Barron videos on YT. I’m an ex Roman Catholic, and for some strange reason I was curious to hear what he had to say. I was disappointed to say the least. IMO, he comes across as the iron fist in the velvet glove – all casual and hip, but a fundy and possibly Opus Dei underneath that breezy exterior. In one of his videos he was waxing lyrical about Bob Dylan – I don’t remember exactly what he said, but I was ready to ditch Dylan there and then, and take up Death Metal instead.
Ha! But let me plead with you not to give up on Dylan….
Lol. Fear not, it would take a lot more than someone like Bob Barron for me to give on Bob Dylan.
Whilst I’m sure you have grown accustomed to frosty receptions (or lazy dismissals) from apologists and the like, I could well imagine that this book would have drawn more ire than most, questioning as it does one of the absolute core beliefs of Christianity.
Keep up the good work Bart.
Off topic but can you recommend a book on the development of the concept of demons as it evolved throughout Christian history? I’d love to read Travis Procter’s mew book but it’s prohibitive price-wise right now. Thanks!
There’s a book called Dictionary of Demons and Divinities in the Bible, ed. by Karel van der Torn (I think) et al. You might try that!
. . . and just after that, they promoted him to Bishop.
People who rely on belief rather than evidence are often led to anger and aggression (including name-calling and misrepresentation) when confronted with logic, reason and facts. There’s been a lot of his around recently. If people’s brains were not wired like this the whole history if religion would be very different.
“My view is that my book should have ZERO impact on intelligent, informed, Christian belief.”
When I first read this book (which, I should add, is my favorite) I wasn’t as informed as I am today, and I have questionable intelligence, so I suppose I wasn’t immune to the impacts of the book. But I’m glad I wasn’t!
The only non-biblical book that has had a comparable impact on my beliefs was Ed Sanders, ‘Jesus and Judaism’, but this topped that. I was well on my way down this path, but HJBG gave me the confidence to fully switch my beliefs that the historical Jesus was an ordinary man who became divine, rather than the other way round, and rather than diminish my faith, it has enhanced it.
Jesus became much more relatable as a human being who was chosen by God, rather than a pre-existing divine being who visited earth. He was one of us! The life he led, the struggles he wrestled with, the ethics he taught, and the suffering he endured became more intelligible and impressive, not less, due to his carnal origins.
I’m forever grateful for HJBG as it rescued the historical Jesus from his opaque depiction by the church.
And I should add, in my part of the world it is already the 24th May, so a big happy birthday to Bob Dylan.
Barron is a bishop now. If only the Catholic Church elevated more of its serious scholars instead of its ideologues. Oh well.
Scholars don’t necessarily make good administrators. Which the job of a bishop is. If you don’t believe me ask almost any academic.
As you have often pointed out, many “ancient” people equated success with God’s favor. The success and wealth of the Catholic Church must have seemed to its rulers as proof that they were acting as God intended making introspection and change difficult. It is not surprising that they continue to lash out against reason and we should all be grateful that they can no longer openly persecute those they consider threats. While the church is growing in poorer countries, the loss of so many in the in the Western world will surely further diminish their influence due to loss of revenue. As for Barron, I am so sorry that he has insulted you. I see a small, scared man who lacks the facts necessary for a fair discussion. IMO, he regrets and is very angry that he wasn’t borne 600 years ago.
Says the guy representing the most asinine explanation of life currently available on earth.
Uh, do you mean me or the Very Reverend Barron? If me, I can think of hundreds of more asinine views than the one I have!disabledupes{82d0441a4dc40c55ee59cccc364e5f22}disabledupes
I’m a fan, Bart. I’m of course referring to the Very Reverend Barron!
Bart, when is your book Revelation coming out?
Sometime around March 23.
“(The use of Palestine has almost NEVER driven by political consideratoins:”
Oh Bart, are you too busy to follow Social Media. The claim that Jesus was Palestinian is all over pro Palestinian Social Media like Lechner on Myggs.
By the way, your use of combining “almost” and “never/certainly” has not been a Pal to you over the years. And who does your proofing, Al-Jazeera?
http://thenewporphyry.blogspot.com/
I”m talking about scholars of ancient Christianity, not about what people say on social media.
So intellectually dishonest from Mr Barron!
Bart, just a heads up – the link to his article should be: https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/barron/why-jesus-is-god-a-response-to-bart-ehrman/
Like Carrier, you probably won’t debate him too Bart!
Never been asked!
So, this thread caught my eye about the meaning of “The Very Reverend”. Is he the one revered or is he the one doing the revering? I assumed something revered is something good! Otherwise why would churches turn it into a title? Alas:
Definition of reverend adjective from the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
reverend adjective
/ˈrevərənd/
/ˈrevərənd/
[only before noun] Reverend
(abbreviation Rev.)
the title of a member of the clergy that is also sometimes used to talk to or about one
Word Origin
late Middle English: from Old French, or from Latin reverendus ‘person to be revered’, (ok, so he’s the one bring not doing the revering) gerundive of revereri from re- (expressing intensive force) + vereri ‘to fear’.
Hmm, the very forceful one to be feared!
I wouldn’t worry too much about Robert Barron. He is on the far right of the right-wing of the catholic church and their republican minons. I used to love to listen to him, loved it especially when he grieved over the death of Christoper Hitchens. But he had just gone too far out for me to continue to pay much attention to him. As george carlin observed, he NEEDS money for everything.. You gotta hand it to those guys: they hate to lose their racket. Cheers. JFR