by Michael F. Bird, Craig A. Evans, Simon Gathercole, Charles E. Hill, Chris Tilling.
In his recent book 'How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher From Galilee' historian Bart Ehrman explores a claim that resides at the heart of the Christian faith - that Jesus of Nazareth was, and is, God. According to Ehrman, though, this is not what the earliest disciples believed, nor what Jesus claimed about himself.
The first response book to this latest challenge to Christianity from Ehrman,'How God Became Jesus' features the work of five internationally recognized biblical scholars. While subjecting his claims to critical scrutiny, they offer a better, historically informed account of why the Galilean preacher from Nazareth came to be hailed as 'the Lord Jesus Christ.' Namely, they contend, the exalted place of Jesus in belief and worship is clearly evident in the earliest Christian sources, shortly following his death, and was not simply the invention of the church centuries later.
The responders are right that the earliest sources give an exalted place to Jesus (Angel, Lord of the World, Son of God). However they are wrong that this took place after Jesus' death. Mythological characters do not die. Rather, it is probably in the Second century that later Christians writers write myths about Jesus coming down to Earth and dying and rising again.
by Michael F. Bird, Craig A. Evans, Simon Gathercole, Charles E. Hill, Chris Tilling.
In his recent book 'How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher From Galilee' historian Bart Ehrman explores a claim that resides at the heart of the Christian faith - that Jesus of Nazareth was, and is, God. According to Ehrman, though, this is not what the earliest disciples believed, nor what Jesus claimed about himself.
The first response book to this latest challenge to Christianity from Ehrman,'How God Became Jesus' features the work of five internationally recognized biblical scholars. While subjecting his claims to critical scrutiny, they offer a better, historically informed account of why the Galilean preacher from Nazareth came to be hailed as 'the Lord Jesus Christ.' Namely, they contend, the exalted place of Jesus in belief and worship is clearly evident in the earliest Christian sources, shortly following his death, and was not simply the invention of the church centuries later.
Did the Early Church Invent Jesus’ Divinity After the Fact?
March 27, 2014 By Michael F. Bird
Over at BibleGateway is a interview I did with Emily Varner about Bart Ehrman, Jesus’ divinity, and the New Testament.
Here’s a teaser:
EV: How would you respond if someone said, “Doesn’t this discussion just boil down to faith (‘just trust the church teaching’) or respect for the Bible (‘the Bible says it, that settles it’)”?
MB: Well, yes, in one sense, you either believe the church’s testimony or you don’t. The important question is, however, what does the church’s testimony about Jesus found in Scripture actually say? Ehrman and friends think that it does not give a clear or consistent presentation of his divine nature, but ebbs and flows over different ways of identifying him as divine in vague or incomplete senses, and the NT language about Jesus has been largely misread or misunderstood. Okay, maybe some good points are scored by Ehrman here and there, but for the most part, we are not convinced by the evidence or the reasons that Ehrman provides for thinking that Jesus was “divine” in the senses that Ehrman maps onto the various books of the New Testament.
EV: Is How God Became Jesus just a catchy play on the Ehrman book, or does it have a deeper theological or historical meaning?
MB: Well partly, “yes,” but on another level the titles reflect the two positions. For Ehrman—and others—plotting the beliefs about Jesus in the early church is really plotting the evolution of belief in Jesus as the one who proclaimed God, to the later point when he was proclaimed as God. We don’t deny that it took time for the earliest churches to sort out in their own minds who Jesus was, to determine what Scriptures best expressed his purpose and identity, to find the best grammar and terminology to talk about him. It was a messy process with many steps forwards and few backwards. That said, we think the evidence points to the fact that early on, certainly within 20 years of his death, Jesus was identified and worshipped in such a way as to make it clear that he was regarded as being intrinsic to the God of Israel’s own identity. It wasn’t that Jesus was a man who became God, rather, it seems, as far as our sources tell us, it was God who became man, the man Jesus of Nazareth.
In another post, Bird also acknowledges the' development' of "christology"
Exploring our Matrix (James McGrath). My buddy James (who’ll be at an SBL session on both books) talks about the initial ripples of both books. He’s right that the Ehrman is largely popularizing views widely extant in mainline scholarship about the origins of christology. He’s right in the sense that many believe that a christology did evolve or develop and I would not deny that. ... [snip] ...
The christology of the early church undoubtedly developed and was debated … no contest. The question as to whether christology developed/evolved along the pattern projected by the old German religionsgeschichte schule or by its latent variations is equally settled, it didn’t … no contest. Bousset’s theory* has been cut into more pieces than Darth Maul. So, yes, everyone agrees that development occurred, but some models of development have been well and truly debunked
PhilosopherJay wrote:
The responders are right that the earliest sources give an exalted place to Jesus (Angel, Lord of the World, Son of God). However they are wrong that this took place after Jesus' death. Mythological characters do not die. Rather, it is probably in the Second century that later Christians writers write myths about Jesus coming down to Earth and dying and rising again.
Warmly, Jay Raskin
There's a whole lot to unpackage & clarify here:
* what earliest sources you may be alluding to
*whether one gives weight to Erhman's & others views that the Pauline texts refer to a spiritual character
* whether one thinks the Pauline texts align more with with Gnostic texts than the gospels
* whether there was a Jesus who died or whether the Jesus character is a fleshed-up 'celestial'/spiritual Jesus
The responders are right that the earliest sources give an exalted place to Jesus (Angel, Lord of the World, Son of God). However they are wrong that this took place after Jesus' death. Mythological characters do not die. Rather, it is probably in the Second century that later Christians writers write myths about Jesus coming down to Earth and dying and rising again.
Warmly,
Jay Raskin
Hi, PhilosopherJay
I think its worth while to consider where the negative responses to Ehrman' new book are coming from. The book that is in response to Ehrman is from fundamentalist christians (as far as I can see...) Yes, of course, Ehrman' book needs to be reviewed by scholars - but those with a conservative christian background are not the scholars that are going to do this with an open mind. How could they? Ehrman has struck at the heart of their belief system...they will be on the defensive ....
It will be interesting to see if any liberal scholars are going to try and counter Ehrman's argument in this new book.
As for the ahistoricist/mythicists that uphold the Carrier-Doherty theory - how about a debate between Ehrman and Carrier on the christology question? The question of christology is just as relevant for both sides in the historicity v ahistoricity debate. When did the gospel Jesus figure, historical or literary, become defied; from what point did christology begin to 'dress' this gospel figure?
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
neilgodfrey wrote:Wasn't the "How God" book published before or around the same time as Ehrman's "How Jesus" book? If so, in what sense is it a "response" to Ehrman's?
Neil, the How God became Jesus book was published as a response to Ehrman' book.
In what may be an unprecedented publishing event, a book by evangelical scholars critiquing Ehrman’s book was released at the same time yesterday, entitled How God Became Jesus. The concurrent publication of the rebuttal book was facilitated by the fact that its publishing house, Zondervan, is owned by HarperCollins, which published Ehrman’s book under the HarperOne imprint.
I can't find another quote - I think it might be somewhere in the other thread - that Ehrman' book, in draft form, was given to those who have responded to it. I'll keep looking for the reference...
-------------------------
Here it is: Michael Bird - contributor to the response book:
So I approached a few friends whom I know to be eminent scholars but would share my interest (Simon Gathercole, Chris Tilling, Craig Evans, and Chuck Hill), and suggested we write a short response to Ehrman. My editor at Zondervan, Katya Covrett, who always has a mixture of curiosity and concern when I share new ideas with her, thought this crazy idea could work. HarperOne was gracious enough to give us a pre-pub copy of the book, which we read and reflected on immediately, we then wrote up our responses over Christmas, and the whole thing came together remarkably well.
neilgodfrey wrote:Wasn't the "How God" book published before or around the same time as Ehrman's "How Jesus" book? If so, in what sense is it a "response" to Ehrman's?
... Ehrman' book, in draft form, was given to those who have responded to it. I'll keep looking for the reference...
Yes; I saw a statement to that effect: I'll try to find it again ...
add: last sentence of the Editor's Preface here -
There are several people who need to be thanked for getting this volume out in a quick-fire fashion. First, our contributors, Craig A. Evans (Acadia Divinity College), Simon Gathercole (Cambridge University), Chuck Hill (Reformed Theological Seminary – Orlando), and Chris Tilling (St. Mellitus College). These fellas did a cracking good job of writing robust and readable responses to Ehrman over the Christmas break of 2013.
... [snip] ...
Third, I’m grateful for the good folk at HarperOne for releasing Ehrman’s manuscript to us well in advance of its publication.
Michael F. Bird
15th of January 2014
The Holy Birthday Feast of St. Katya of Гранд Рапидс
