Why is Bart Ehrman wrong?

I think a good case can be made for the divinity of not just Jesus, but of his followers too.

https://www.cogwriter.com/becominggod.htm

Hum. it’s an interesting passage, but I always thought that it fit in with Jesus other passages, which include hyperbole in the extreme to prove his point. That fits into The Sermon on the Mount, too.

I’m curious. What do you mean? That Jesus never existed, or that he was an ordinary man that a myth was made of? Knowing human nature, don’t you think that it’s easier to make a myth out of someone who existed than entirely from nothing?

I think it’s probable that Jesus, the Son of God of the Gospels, never existed physically on this earth. I think Synoptic Gospels come up with a clever explanation for why nobody has heard of Jesus.

First, as soon as Jesus is starting his ministry, he is confused by the people as John the Baptist raised from the dead.

Mark 6:14 King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead , and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”

And even after all his ministry and teachings, if the Synoptic Gospelers are to be believed, the people remain confused.

Matt. 16: 13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

And then Jesus warns his disciples not to tell anyone about him. Here the details become a bit murky.

Mark 8:30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

Matt. 16:20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Luke 9: 21 Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone. …

So, the people in “Peter Confession” passages think Jesus is anyone other than the historical person, and each time Jesus warns his disciples not to tell the people. Which is, as considered by some, a clever way of explaining why noone in the area heard of this.

I used to think these kinds of things improbable also. I don’t think I ever doubted the disciples not figuring out that Jesus could make food at will… mine was regarding the Israelites constant doubt that Yahweh had the power to make food at will. The were given near constant reminders of a God’s power, and kept rebelling, grumbling, etc. Thomas had seen other great miracles including resurrections, it still doubted the unanimous testimony of the other 10 apostles. Jericho had heard of God’s power in destroying Egypt, but they thought thy might hold out anyway. Moses had seen the sea part and seen manna from heaven, but still doubted God could have gotten meat.

But as I’ve grown, and seen the exact same tendency in my life and that of others, I don’t even blink at an eye at such incidents in Scripture. How many times have I seen God prove himself trustworthy, and yet I doubt his goodness in some form or fashion on a daily basis. “Sure, you came through for me last week. What are you going to do for me today?”

3 Likes

Paul’s letters are a problem for this theory. He was writing within 20 years of Jesus’ death. I don’t think you’ll find any serious historians of antiquity, secular or religious, who question the fact that Jesus was a real person who lived and died in first century Palestine. That won’t stop Bill Maher from agreeing with you, though! haha

The question is whether the gospels contain Jesus’ ipsissima verba (precise words) or ipsissima vox (precise voice). I vote for the latter, broadly defined. You can see this at work in the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3. They more than likely would’ve spoken Aramaic to one another, but the dialogue in John’s gospel hinges upon a Greek word, anothen, which can mean “again” or “from above.” Were Jesus and Nicodemus speaking Greek to one another? Possibly, but I trust you see the problem.

On the disciples’ ineptitude, that is a feature, not a bug. In Mark 8 immediately after the feeding of the 4000, Jesus says, “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?”

I highlighted the last bit because it is the key phrase you see in the prophets when the people are so far gone that only parable and symbolic action can get through to them. And what happens next?

They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man’s eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, “Do you see anything?” He looked up and said, “I see people; they look like trees walking around.” Once more Jesus put his hands on the man’s eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly.

Did Jesus need two tries? No, but that’s probably why Matthew and Luke leave out this incident. As James Edwards says in his commentary on Mark,

His healing exemplifies the situation of the disciples, who move through the same three stages in Mark, from non-understanding (8:17-21) to misunderstanding (8:29-33) to complete understanding (15:39). The first “healing touch” for them will come on the road to Caesara Phillippi (8:27ff) when Peter declares that Jesus is Messiah. The disciples will no longer be blind, but their vision will remain imperfect and blurred, for they do not understand the meaning of Messiahship. Only at the cross and resurrection will they, like the man at Bethsaida, see “everything clearly” (v. 25).

Immediately after the two-stage healing, Mark transitions to Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ. This is the climax of the first half of the Gospel. Prior to that, Jesus crisscrosses the Sea of Galilee without apparent purpose, but afterward he is “on the way” to Jerusalem. In the first half of Mark, Jesus teaches the masses in Galilee, but then he focuses on his disciples on the journey to Jerusalem. Prior to Peter’s confession, Jesus forbids people from announcing his identity and is frequently in combat with demon possession. After 9:29, there are no more commands to silence and no further mention of exorcisms. In the first half the disciples fail to understand Jesus; in the latter half they fail to comprehend a suffering Messiah rather than a royal one.

Both halves of the Gospel also conclude with confessions of Christ. The first is Peter’s; the second is the Roman centurion’s (15:39). As Edwards says in his comments, “Both confessions teach that Jesus’ true identity is revealed only through suffering – and that those who are called to follow Jesus must be prepared to participate in his suffering.”

4 Likes

John 3 raises questions about what you mean by ipsissima vox, since one of the notable features of the exchange is that it’s impossible to tell when Jesus’ words end and the narrator’s begin. Stylistically, there is no real difference. This is notable because John has quite a distinct Greek style.

1 Like

True. Koine Greek didn’t have quote marks. I’ll borrow Daniel Wallace’s definition of ipsissima vox: “the concepts go back to Jesus, but the words do not — at least, not exactly as recorded.”

Wallace is the author of a popular textbook on Greek grammar. He wrote an essay on the vox question that turned out to be controversial with strict inerrantists, so he hasn’t published it on the web.

Edit: I think he said something along the lines of putting a lot of Jesus’ words in pink, which didn’t go over well.

That all may be, but the fact remains that the people are (as the Gospelers allege) all confused about Jesus, they think Jesus is risen John the Baptist or one of the risen prophets. And yet, Jesus tells the disciples not to tell anyone about him?!?

Paul was not an eyewitness. Based on my understanding, there is only one problematic statement by Paul, when he says… “James, the brother of the Lord”, but it’s a bit ambiguous and could be interpreted as a 'brother in the Lord" which is how all Christians considered one another.

At any rate, Paul clearly says he is not basing his teaching on any tradition, but receives a revelation!

Galatians 1: 11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph. 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles— 2 if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace which was given to me for you; 3 that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief.

Paul seems unaware of Jesus’ earthly teachings and ministry

1 Cor. 9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

Paul is clearly unaware of the biggest difference between himself and the rest of the Apostles. Namely, they were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ miracles, they heard his teachings and parables, they lived with Jesus where as Paul just saw a revelation! And Paul is not aware of this at all, even though we see him defending his Apostleship claims in numerous places.

At any rate, this is not a comprehensive defense of mythicism. I recommend you check out Richard Carriers and Earl Doherty’s works on the subject.

Had Paul meant “brother in the Lord”, he would have written “brother in the Lord” as he did elsewhere. You can’t ignore what he actually wrote.

1 Like

Well, as I’ve said, this is the only thing in historicists favor and other things against them. And no, I’m not ignoring it.

Far from true. The point is that historians don’t look at the New Testament as one book. It is a collection of documents, and the letters are primary sources contemporaneous with events. Josephus, also a contemporary, mentions Jesus twice and describes the death of James, the Lord’s brother. (The Wiki page Josephus on Jesus isn’t bad.) As I said, no serious historian doubts the existence of Jesus.

3 Likes

Agreed no serious historian thinks Jesus never existed. Something started Christianity and the existence and death of Jesus of Nazareth and followers who refused to think he was really dead seems the simplest solution. A lot of stories did accrue to him after his death.

As to a previous point by someone else Bart Ehrman has tenure; he can’t be fired (short of the university shutting down the entire department or gross misconduct).

2 Likes

The link reference John 10:34-36, where Jesus references Psalm 82 and refers to the religious leaders of Israel as ‘gods’.

Any text needs to be interpreted in the context of all scripture. In John 10 it is very clear that Jesus is the Shepherd and we are His sheep. At no point do sheep become shepherds, we are always His sheep, in this life and the next completely dependent on Him. It is also very clear from John 10 that Jesus claimed to be God.

In Psalm 82 , God is admonishing the judges in Israel that they stand before those they are judging as gods, and they need to be compassionate to the poor, afflicted, fatherless and widows.

Jesus was stated in the referenced passage that the religious leaders of Israel were standing in judgement of Him, putting themselves in the place of ‘gods’ .

1 Like

I had meant to comment here that I’ve often had the impression that some atheists seem every bit as cocksure as fundamentalist apologists. Just as Christian fundamentalists come off as triumphalists as though, with Bible in hand, they are only awaiting the day of their ascension, so too fundamentalist-like atheists seem to feel that the achievement of atheism marks them as fully enlightened geniuses. In my experience these will be atheists who left fundamentalist Christian denominations.

@Ron0126, you recently commented that having returned to faith you do not feel as though it was the same faith you’d left. I wonder if you have elaborated anywhere on the manner of the differences you notice. If not, and you don’t mind sharing, I’m interested.

2 Likes

I think no serious historian doubts that the Gospels contain embellishments. The only question is how much is embellished.

Former smokers are the most rabid anti-smokers. It’s a universal trait of the “deconversion” experience.

4 Likes

I’d say it’s impossible to do because Scripture says many different things. Jesus never said “I’m God” but claimed to be Son of God while also saying that the Father is the ONLY true God!

So, in the context of the whole Scripture what is your assumption? If you assume Jesus’ divinity then the rest of counter texts will be explained away, and vice versa.

Same with deification.

We seem to have simultaneously posted. Anyway, I can agree with that statement. You might be interested in the case of Mike Licona. In the midst of arguing for the historical nature of Jesus’ resurrection, Licona said that Matt. 27:52-53 was not historical but a sort of “window dressing” that ancient historians often engaged in. Those few paragraphs in the midst of a 700-pg book got him fired.

The biblical text in question: “The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.”

Licona’s defense: When the Saints Go Marching In

3 Likes

In light of this thread, here’s a Licona/Ehrman exchange I read most of the other day:

2 Likes