Ehrman's "How Jesus Became a God" is now out.

[steve43]

"So, the next step for Ehrman? To move beyond the theological or philosophical thrust of the NT story and get out a history book! Because the next step is the historical context in which the gospel story has been set. Push Christology aside, put the Pauline epistles aside - and allow Jewish history it’s part in the creation of that gospel Jesus story."

LOL.

I have never read Erdman but that should have been the FIRST line of research he undertook, and the first step for any serious early Christian scholar.

Hagan has been there, in fact, and there is much to be learned.

Read his "Year of the Passover" and "Fires of Rome"

[maryhelena]

"So, the next step for Ehrman? To move beyond the theological or philosophical thrust of the NT story and get out a history book! Because the next step is the historical context in which the gospel story has been set. Push Christology aside, put the Pauline epistles aside - and allow Jewish history it’s part in the creation of that gospel Jesus story."

LOL.

I have never read Erdman but that should have been the FIRST line of research he undertook, and the first step for any serious early Christian scholar.

Hagan has been there, in fact, and there is much to be learned.

Read his "Year of the Passover" and "Fires of Rome"

Perhaps I should be more specific - Ehrman needs to study the Josephan writings.....Why? Because it is those writings that are fundamental to researching the Jewish history that is relevant to the Jesus story. And that is not an easy thing to do as the Josephan writings are not simply the work of an historian. They are also the work of a "prophetic historian". ie history plus pseudo-history - history viewed, and interpreted, through a Jewish prophetic lens.

I just downloaded "Year of the Passover". From first impressions it is simply taking a snapshot of Jewish history ie covering a great deal of ground - and, seemingly, taking the Josephan writer at face value....It's not the sort of book that a scholar like Ehrman would find much depth in. I'll get around to reading it but for now I have to settle into Daniel Schwartz' book, Agrippa I - a book dealing with one historical figure and a book doing so in 222 pages...

Another Schwartz book, Reading the First Century, demonstrates the many challenges and problems with reading the Josephan writings. Getting a clear picture of Jewish history, history that is relevant to the gospel story, is not as easy as opening a history book - although that is a good start - but one can't take the Josephan writer at face value.

And anyway, Jewish political history was not the focus of Ehrman' new book - tracing the history, through the NT texts, of the development of Christology was the focus.....

[toejam]

Finished the audiobook of this recently. I enjoyed it. Having read most of Ehrman's work, some of it was a bit repetitive to me, but it was good to hear the issues that he had recently changed his mind about.

I think he mostly makes good cases for his points.

[maryhelena]

Finished the audiobook of this recently. I enjoyed it. Having read most of Ehrman's work, some of it was a bit repetitive to me, but it was good to hear the issues that he had recently changed his mind about.

I think he mostly makes good cases for his points.

Hi, toejam - welcome to the forum...

As to Ehrman' new book - yep, I think he accomplished what he set out to do. ie to demonstrate from the NT texts how the gospel Jesus figure became a god. I think that demonstration challenges both the fundamentalist christians and those mythicists who support the Carrier-Doherty thesis.

I'm an ahistoricst/mythicist myself - albeit one who has never ascribed to the Carrier-Doherty thesis. Consequently, while Ehrman has done well in this book re the christology question - this book and it's conclusions does not, in any what whatsoever, challenge the fundamental premise of the ahistoricists/mythicists, ie that the gospel figure of Jesus is not a historical figure. (From what reviews I have read, Ehrman failed in his attempt, "Did Jesus Exist", to provide any evidence to challenge the fundamental claim of the ahistoricists/mythicists.)

The gospel story of Jesus is just that, a story. What Ehrman has done in his new book is to demonstrate the correct way in which that story should be read. ie Christology, for the gospel writers, was bottom up not top down. ie it was a development process from physical, historical realities, to the spiritual/intellectual philosophical type thinking. That is an important contribution to the search for early christian origins.

[steve43]

"So, the next step for Ehrman? To move beyond the theological or philosophical thrust of the NT story and get out a history book! Because the next step is the historical context in which the gospel story has been set. Push Christology aside, put the Pauline epistles aside - and allow Jewish history it’s part in the creation of that gospel Jesus story."

LOL.

I have never read Erdman but that should have been the FIRST line of research he undertook, and the first step for any serious early Christian scholar.

Hagan has been there, in fact, and there is much to be learned.

Read his "Year of the Passover" and "Fires of Rome"

Perhaps I should be more specific - Ehrman needs to study the Josephan writings.....Why? Because it is those writings that are fundamental to researching the Jewish history that is relevant to the Jesus story. And that is not an easy thing to do as the Josephan writings are not simply the work of an historian. They are also the work of a "prophetic historian". ie history plus pseudo-history - history viewed, and interpreted, through a Jewish prophetic lens.

I just downloaded "Year of the Passover". From first impressions it is simply taking a snapshot of Jewish history ie covering a great deal of ground - and, seemingly, taking the Josephan writer at face value....It's not the sort of book that a scholar like Ehrman would find much depth in. I'll get around to reading it but for now I have to settle into Daniel Schwartz' book, Agrippa I - a book dealing with one historical figure and a book doing so in 222 pages...

Another Schwartz book, Reading the First Century, demonstrates the many challenges and problems with reading the Josephan writings. Getting a clear picture of Jewish history, history that is relevant to the gospel story, is not as easy as opening a history book - although that is a good start - but one can't take the Josephan writer at face value.

And anyway, Jewish political history was not the focus of Ehrman' new book - tracing the history, through the NT texts, of the development of Christology was the focus.....

That is the problem with most investigations into early Christian times.
People DON'T take Josephus at face value.
And they should- except for his use of very large numbers which Hagan goes into.
What greater source do we have for Jewish history- especially history in Christian times?
None.
And Josephus wrote his own biography to boot.
This is extraordinary for scholarship of two thousand years ago.
I encourage everyone to read Josephus' Wars at the very least. A very easy read and it is online.
Josephus comes across as a very human and understandable person.
He is an underrated source.
Josephus has been proven out time and time again when people have dismissed his writings as hyperbole and self-serving. Two examples: Gamala was thought to be a fabricated city. Josephus writes about the Roman siege of it. But it was recently discovered in 1967. Another was his writings on Caesarea. From what could be seen in the last 1500 years, his descriptions were wildly out of synch- way too large. But underwater investigations have proven him right- the harbor rested on relatively soft foundations and, combined with the effects of earthquakes, sank.
So the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Philo should be prerequisite reading for all those who ultimately want to jump off into the realm of Christian theology and philosophy.
Roman and Jewish history as it relates to the New Testament should have been the FIRST of Erman's books. It might have made the writing of some of his other book unnecessary or not worth the time.

[maryhelena]

"So, the next step for Ehrman? To move beyond the theological or philosophical thrust of the NT story and get out a history book! Because the next step is the historical context in which the gospel story has been set. Push Christology aside, put the Pauline epistles aside - and allow Jewish history it’s part in the creation of that gospel Jesus story."

LOL.

I have never read Erdman but that should have been the FIRST line of research he undertook, and the first step for any serious early Christian scholar.

Hagan has been there, in fact, and there is much to be learned.

Read his "Year of the Passover" and "Fires of Rome"

Perhaps I should be more specific - Ehrman needs to study the Josephan writings.....Why? Because it is those writings that are fundamental to researching the Jewish history that is relevant to the Jesus story. And that is not an easy thing to do as the Josephan writings are not simply the work of an historian. They are also the work of a "prophetic historian". ie history plus pseudo-history - history viewed, and interpreted, through a Jewish prophetic lens.

I just downloaded "Year of the Passover". From first impressions it is simply taking a snapshot of Jewish history ie covering a great deal of ground - and, seemingly, taking the Josephan writer at face value....It's not the sort of book that a scholar like Ehrman would find much depth in. I'll get around to reading it but for now I have to settle into Daniel Schwartz' book, Agrippa I - a book dealing with one historical figure and a book doing so in 222 pages...

Another Schwartz book, Reading the First Century, demonstrates the many challenges and problems with reading the Josephan writings. Getting a clear picture of Jewish history, history that is relevant to the gospel story, is not as easy as opening a history book - although that is a good start - but one can't take the Josephan writer at face value.

And anyway, Jewish political history was not the focus of Ehrman' new book - tracing the history, through the NT texts, of the development of Christology was the focus.....

That is the problem with most investigations into early Christian times.
People DON'T take Josephus at face value.
And they should- except for his use of very large numbers which Hagan goes into.
What greater source do we have for Jewish history- especially history in Christian times?
None.

Indeed - but all the more reason to question his reconstruction of Jewish history....

As far as Hagan' book is concerned - I started to read it - and I won't be finishing it. It's snapshot of Jewish and Roman history; its acceptance of a historical gospel Jesus; has nothing to offer for an investigation into early christian origins. At least it's low amazon kindle price(3 pounds 31) is a small enough amount to be able to discard the book without any twinge of conscience......

And Josephus wrote his own biography to boot.
This is extraordinary for scholarship of two thousand years ago.
I encourage everyone to read Josephus' Wars at the very least. A very easy read and it is online.
Josephus comes across as a very human and understandable person.
He is an underrated source.
Josephus has been proven out time and time again when people have dismissed his writings as hyperbole and self-serving. Two examples: Gamala was thought to be a fabricated city. Josephus writes about the Roman siege of it. But it was recently discovered in 1967. Another was his writings on Caesarea. From what could be seen in the last 1500 years, his descriptions were wildly out of synch- way too large. But underwater investigations have proven him right- the harbor rested on relatively soft foundations and, combined with the effects of earthquakes, sank.
So the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Philo should be prerequisite reading for all those who ultimately want to jump off into the realm of Christian theology and philosophy.
Roman and Jewish history as it relates to the New Testament should have been the FIRST of Erman's books. It might have made the writing of some of his other book unnecessary or not worth the time.

Ehrman' new book is a necessary book. It is a welcome addition to the historicity v ahistoricity debate over the gospel JC.

How Jesus became God: Bart Ehrman

That's the question I address in my book, and I think it's an inordinately important one, not just for Christians who personally believe that Jesus really is God, but for all of us, whether believers or non-believers, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists: all of us who are interested (as well we ought to be) in the history of Western Civilization.

Once the disciples claimed Jesus was alive again but was (obviously) no longer here with them, they came to think that he had been taken up to heaven (where else could he be?). In ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish thinking, a person exalted to the heavenly realm was divinized - himself made divine. That's what the earliest Christians thought about Jesus. After that a set of evolutionary forces took over, in which the followers of Jesus began saying more and more exalted things about him - that he had been made the son of God at his resurrection; no, it was at his baptism; no, it was at his birth; no, it was before he came into the world; no - he had never been made the son of God, he had always been the Son of God; in fact, he had always been God; more than that, he had created the world; and yet more, he was an eternal being equal with God Almighty.

It's a fascinating set of developments. It is highly important. And it matters not just for those who believe that the followers of Jesus got it right, but for anyone who cares about the factors that shaped the world we live in today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-eh ... 53136.html

Bart Ehrman:

“I’ve never, ever written a book that, in my opinion, is as important as this one, since the historical issues are of immense, almost incalculable importance,” Ehrman said. “The assertion that Jesus is God is arguably the single most important development in Western civilization.”

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/03/25/ ... -new-book/

[steve43]

Hagan's work is hardly a snapshot- he goes back to the beginnings of Imperial Rome, as well as the Jewish Asamonean family. Using characters common to both Josephus and the New Testament, he develops a time line, placing the crucifixion at A.D. 36.
Knowing how Christian events place out in Roman and Jewish history should be interesting to everyone.
In his second book he carries it through Paul the Apostle's adventures to the Jewish revolution.
All secular stuff- no religion or philosophy.
Your breezy dismissal of it is puzzling- unless you believe that Jesus didn't exist in the first place and Christianity developed out of collection of cultural myths.
And there IS no other source, apart from Philo tangentially, where one can get a look into first century Jewish history apart from Josephus.
He should be lionized by the Jews far more than he is, IMO.
What is so bothersome to you about Josephus' writings that you question them?
What historical sources DO you accept?

[maryhelena]

Hagan's work is hardly a snapshot- he goes back to the beginnings of Imperial Rome, as well as the Jewish Asamonean family.

So does Wikipedia....

Using characters common to both Josephus and the New Testament, he develops a time line, placing the crucifixion at A.D. 36.
Knowing how Christian events place out in Roman and Jewish history should be interesting to everyone.
In his second book he carries it through Paul the Apostle's adventures to the Jewish revolution.
Your breezy dismissal of it is puzzling- unless you believe that Jesus didn't exist in the first place and Christianity developed out of collection of cultural myths.

Steve - surely you have read in my posts that I don't believe that the gospel Jesus was a historical figure?? I'm probably as committed to that position as anyone that you will find....

And there IS no other source, apart from Philo tangentially, where one can get a look into first century Jewish history.
What is so bothersome to you about Josephus' writings that you question them?
What historical sources DO you accept?

The Josephan writings are our primary source for Jewish history that is relevant to the gospel story. That fact, in and off itself, should ring alarm bells of anyone searching for early christian origins. How trustworthy is that source? That means that whatever the Josephan writer records has to be subject to confirmation by other historical sources. On top of that is the Josephan writers own admission that he is writing where the prophets of old left off.

Josephus’ prophetic role as historian merits special attention.....In War 1.18-19 he declares that he will begin writing his history where the prophets ended theirs, so he is continuing this part of their prophetic function. According to Ap.1.29 the priests were custodians of the nation’s historical records, and in Ap.1.37 inspired prophets wrote that history. As a priest Josephus is a custodian of his people’s traditions, and by continuing that history in the Jewish War and subsequently by rewriting it in his Antiquities, he is a prophet. For Josephus prophets and historians preserve the past and predict the future, and he has picked up the mantle of creating prophetic writings. Perhaps, in his own mind he is the first since the canonical prophets to generate inspired historiography....

Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writing of Josephus, A Traditio-Historical Analysis by Robert Karl Gnuse.

There is no denying that the picture we now possess of Josephus as a prophet has been refined and developed in various ways. For example, the ideas that he claims first came to him in a moment of prophetic revelation at Jotapata – that God was punishing the Jews for their sins and that fortune had gone over to the Romans - have become major interpretive themes in the War as a whole. Josephus also sometimes reinforces the prophetic claims that he makes for himself by subtle changes in his presentation of the ancient prophets. And it is probable that, with the passage of time, Josephus’ image of himself as a prophet became clearer in his own mind.

Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus: by Rebecca Gray.

This thread is not the place to discuss the Josephan writings. However, there is enough in the quotations from two books, that should be ringing alarm bells for anyone reading Josephus on face value. Consequently, anytime you feel like quoting Josephus - back it up with some other historical source. If you can't do that - then the historicity of the Josephan report is open to question...Is Josephus wearing his historian's hat - or is Josephus wearing his prophetic historian's hat....Is Josephus writing history or is he mixing up his prophetic interpretations with history - thus writing prophetic or pseudo-history.

Additionally, the study by Daniel Schwartz, (Reading the First Century) highlights the depths of research necessary in order to attempt to come to grips with the Josephan writer. Hagan' book fails to deliver anything except a simplistic approach to Josephus.

Ehrman does not need the Josephan writings for his How Jesus became a God, book. This book is dealing with the development of the theology of christology.

That's it from me regarding the Josephan writings....its Christology that is on the agenda in this thread....

[steve43]

You set up a straw man!

Of course there is no other source to corroborate Josephus to the degree that you wish.
So you discount Josephus entirely instead of accepting what he says?
And if there WAS such a second source, well then, would you want a third source to satisfy you?

I suspect that if Josephus didn't have the references to Jesus that you would not object so much.

Certainly Josephus thought he was doing God's work, and expressing God's will to the people. The Jewish religion is full of such people- called prophets. That does not necessarily make Josephus delusional, or mean that he is a bad historian out to twist the facts.

And there is not an ancient historian that we know more about. Josephus wrote his own biography.

Let me put it this way- what about Josephus is DIRECTLY contradicted by other evidence, apart from his use of very large numbers- likely translational?

And from Josephus himself:

Antiq XX 11:2. I shall now, therefore, make an end here of my Antiquities; after the conclusion of which events, I began to write that account of the war: and these Antiquities contain what hath been delivered down to us from the original creation of man, until the twelfth year of the reign of Nero, as to what hath befallen us Jews, as well in Egypt as in Syria, and in Palestine, and what we have suffered from the Assyrians and Babylonians, and what afflictions the Persians and Macedonians, and after them the Romans, have brought upon us; for I think I may say that I have composed this history with sufficient accuracy in all things.

Wars 7.11. 5. And here we shall put an end to this our history; wherein we formerly promised to deliver the same with all accuracy, to such as should be desirous of understanding after what manner this war of the Romans with the Jews was managed. Of which history, how good the style is, must be left to the determination of the readers; but as for its agreement with the facts, I shall not scruple to say, and that boldly, that truth hath been what I have alone aimed at through its entire composition.

Doesn't sound like a man with an ax to grind, but an honest historian putting down the events concerning his people as well as he could.

Ignoring or downplaying Josephus is very poor scholarship.

Every student of early Christian history should know Josephus.

[MrMacSon]

.
I’ve finished reading Ehrman’s new book (just in time as Schwartz’ book, (Agrippa I) has just turned up on inter-library loan.....)

Overall, I think Ehrman has done a good job for those not up on their Christology....His view that it was visions of a supposed resurrection that started the ball rolling, so to speak, for the Christology debates that followed, places his thesis squarely in the gospel story. Yes, he does place the Christology debates as starting very early (20 or so years) but the point is that he has demonstrated a development from bottom up, not top down re the Christology of later Christians, the Christology that won the debate - and of some mythicists today.

One German scholar of the New Testament, Martin Hengel, has famously claimed that “with regard to the development of all the early Church’s Christology . . . more happened in the first twenty years than in the entire later, centuries-long development of dogma.” 6 There is a certain truth to this claim. Of course, a lot did indeed happen after the first twenty years — an enormous amount. But the major leap was made in those twenty years: from seeing Jesus as his own disciples did during his ministry, as a Jewish man with an apocalyptic message of coming destruction, to seeing him as something far greater, a preexistent divine being who became human only temporarily before being made the Lord of the universe. It was not long after that that Jesus was declared to be the very Word of God made flesh, who was with God at creation and through whom God made all things. Eventually Jesus came to be seen as God in every respect, coeternal with the Father, of the same substance as the Father, equal to the Father within the Trinity of three persons, but one God.

This God Christ may not have been the historical Jesus.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2014-03-25). How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (p. 371).

• HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Now that last sentence in the above quote is very interesting. (my bolding) Yes, Ehrman is agnostic so would be ruling out, for him, the supernatural god claims. But perhaps it goes a bit further than that. This could well be the start of a move away from the Christology arguments all together! And what would that mean? It would mean that the NT has two separate Jesus stories. The gospel Jesus story and the Pauline Jesus story. No incarnation christology that seeks to explain how Jesus can be both man and god - but two separate Jesus stories. A physical, flesh and blood, story (a time constrained story) - and a second purely spiritual, theological, philosophical story - a preexistence story. (a timeless story)

Was Bart referring to Hengel's 2003 Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity?

This could well be the start of a move away from the Christology arguments all together! And what would that mean? It would mean that the NT has two separate Jesus stories. The gospel Jesus story and the Pauline Jesus story. No incarnation christology that seeks to explain how Jesus can be both man and god - but two separate Jesus stories: a physical, flesh and blood story (a time-constrained story); and, a second purely-spiritual, theological, philosophical story - a pre-existence story (a timeless story)

I wonder if the Pauline stories, or fore-runners to them, began before the 1st C AD/CE ie. they reflect variations within early hellenized-Judaism; or early Gnosticism; or early transition from increasingly-variable Judaism to Gnosticism
.