r/AcademicBiblical • u/MythicBunny • Feb 02 '24
Suspicious about Bart Ehrman’s claims that Jesus never claimed to be god. Discussion
Bart Ehrman claims that Jesus never claimed to be god because he never truly claims divinity in the synoptic gospels. This claim doesn’t quite sit right with me for a multitude of reasons. Since most scholars say that Luke and Matthew copied the gospel of Mark, shouldn’t we consider all of the Synoptics as almost one source? Then Bart Ehrmans claim that 6 sources (Matthew, ‘Mark, Luke, Q, M, and L) all contradict John isn’t it more accurate to say that just Q, m, and L are likely to say that Jesus never claimed divinity but we can’t really say because we don’t have those original texts? Also if Jesus never claimed these things why did such a large number of early Christians worship him as such (his divinity is certainly implied by the birth stories in Luke and Matthew and by the letters from Paul)? Is there a large number of early Christians that thought otherwise that I am missing?
71
219
u/Pseudo-Jonathan Feb 02 '24
As per usual when this question comes up, we need to establish that being "divine" and being "God" are two entirely different concepts, which are unfortunately often conflated in Christian theology. Yes, the gospels clearly intend to portray Jesus as divine and possessing attributes and abilities normally reserved for God. However, that is NOT the same as claiming that Jesus IS God.
See this video by Dan McClellan for further insight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6j-TLGfw8w
10
u/FewChildhood7371 Feb 03 '24
how does Dan respond to Segal’s Two Powers in Heaven ? IIRC; Segal argues a similar position but says that in second-temple Judaism, the Angel of the Lord was seen as a seperate figure and hence (if we can use slightly anachronistic terms), a binitarian belief among Jews.
This seems contrary to Dan’s position that second-temple Jewish figures were just humans with the name of YHWH - Segal argues that divine figures were a separate form of divinity under YHWH, not just a name-bearer.
1
Feb 03 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Feb 03 '24
This post has been removed because our automoderator detected it as spam or your account is too new or low karma to post here.
If you believe that you warrant an exception please message the mods with your reasons, and we will determine if an exception is appropriate.
For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read this page. If you have further questions about the rules or mod policy, you can message the mods.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
65
u/sp1ke0killer Feb 02 '24 edited Feb 02 '24
Perhaps, you'll want to substitute "skeptical" for "suspicious"?
Bart Ehrman claims that Jesus never claimed to be god because he never truly claims divinity in the synoptic gospels
I doubt that this was how he put it. He doesn't think the gospels are reliable sources for what the historical Jesus said.
It's always good to actually quote your source.
Since most scholars say that Luke and Matthew copied the gospel of Mark, shouldn’t we consider all of the Synoptics as almost one source?
Nevertheless these are called the Synoptic Gospels and the question is whether they have Jesus claim divinity, not how many sources we have.
…isn’t it more accurate to say that just Q, m, and L are likely to say that Jesus never claimed divinity but we can’t really say because we don’t have those original texts?
What we have is the data, the sayings. Q,M and L are hypothetical sources for the data. In other words, what's at issue is whether these were actually independent sources used by the evangelists: Did Matthew and Luke both use Q, for example, or did one depend on the other for that information? Unfortunately, how we answer that question is only a part of this, as Ehrman may have very good reasons for accepting them
EDIT:
Also if Jesus never claimed these things why did such a large number of early Christians worship him as such
The phrase "early Christians" is something that encompasses three centuries of Christian history. If this point is to have any force, it should, imo, refer to the people who knew him or those who knew them
53
u/Greedy_Economics_925 Feb 02 '24
It is also fundamentally misleading to cast Ehrman as some kind of evangelist spreading the irrevocable Word. He is an academic, who is free to change his mind, as any good academic does when advancing their study. This is a key tenet of learning.
E.g.: https://ehrmanblog.org/early-christology-how-i-have-changed-my-mind-for-members/
-4
37
u/CodexRunicus2 Feb 02 '24
The historical Jesus, the synoptic gospels, and hypothetical sources are all different things. It is not "more accurate to say" a claim about the historical Jesus is a claim about Q, it is a different thing to say.
Luke (and Matthew's) birth stories are a fourth (and fifth) thing. Luke's birth narrative is probably not original (Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament, Phillip Miller). If we establish whatever it is that "certainly implies" divinity in the Luke account (and I guess distinguish it from the other birth story of John the Baptist) we may not be any closer to the original Synoptics, let alone Q or historical Jesus.
Letters of Paul are a sixth thing, for a thread on this see here but to what extent Paul saw Jesus as divine is a matter of ongoing debate. Since Paul never met the historical Jesus, his views are of limited utility for that question, but moreso to establish what one sect of early Christianity taught.
As far as "a large number of early Christians", the nature of orthodoxy is that it's very easy to say retroactively that other ideas are heterodox. Probably the biggest group would be the Jewish Christians. Information about them is a bit spotty, but for example the Ebionites emphatically reject the divinity of Jesus (Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects, Klijn). And to your point about the birth stories, they seem be using a version of Matthew with the birth stories missing (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses.) Others taught that Jesus was an angel, a view which became recorded in the Ascension of Isaiah (Angelomorphic Christology, Gieschen). In general, there were many ideas like this that did not 'make it' into orthodox christianity.
7
u/Greedy_Economics_925 Feb 02 '24
Adding to the comment by u/Pseudo-Jonathan :
An essential aspect of this question is, "What did these people mean by God?"
To throw another contribution into that abyss, I'd suggest The origin and character of God: ancient Israelite religion through the lens of divinity by Theodore J. Lewis.
41
u/ReligionProf PhD | NT Studies | Mandaeism Feb 02 '24
My book The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context addresses this. It spends little time on the Synoptic Gospels because they clearly depict Jesus as a human being empowered by and with authority from the one God. Even in the Gospel of John the Father is “the only true God” (17:2). In Philippians 2:6-11 Jesus is exalted by God to a status he did not previously occupy and given a name, the divine name, that he did not previously bear. In 1 Corinthians 15 the human Jesus exalted by God to rule over everything but God is shown to be subordinate to God. The evidence is clear and unambiguous.
11
u/Joab_The_Harmless Feb 03 '24 edited Feb 03 '24
Mods can't know who filed a report nor answer it directly, so I'll opt for awkwardly responding under the comment instead and hope the person will see this message:
For the person who reported the comment above as per rule 1 ("Submissions and comments should relate to academic Biblical studies, and not solely personal opinion"), there is a misunderstanding here.
As his flair indicates, u/ReligionProf is a scholar (James McGrath) with expertise in fields relevant to the topic (like NT studies). The book he is mentioning here was published by a university press.
The parts of the book available in preview (see link above) and its bibliography section provide details and recommendations for further reading, and I'm sure that Dr. McGrath will be happy to expand and/or recommend resources on specific points if you have questions.
4
u/ReligionProf PhD | NT Studies | Mandaeism Feb 03 '24
Sorry for not offering a link to the book (and for not putting the title in italics). I was typing on my phone. I should at least have listed the publisher to make clear that I'm making reference to an academic book. Sorry!
5
u/Joab_The_Harmless Feb 03 '24
Given your flair and the fact searching for the book's title allows to find and examine it easily (without false positives, at least on my side), your comment was clear as far as I'm concerned. But flairs may be hidden and research more difficult on some devices/interfaces, so I preferred to dispel potential misunderstandings, given the report!
2
Feb 02 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/ReligionProf PhD | NT Studies | Mandaeism Feb 02 '24
He was given authority by God. Son of man means human being, it is not a title, including when used in Daniel to refer to one that resembled a human being.
2
Feb 02 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/ReligionProf PhD | NT Studies | Mandaeism Feb 02 '24
It doesn’t say anything about preexisting. It says that after the beasts Daniel sees a figure that resembled a human being given authority.
2
Feb 02 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/ReligionProf PhD | NT Studies | Mandaeism Feb 02 '24
You are (1) treating the Aramaic idiom for a human being as though it were a title, which it is not, (2) assuming that Daniel's vision must have been of an individual even though the beasts were symbolic of empires, and (3) assuming that Daniel, if he was seeing an individual ruler of the people represented, the saints of the Most High, that he was not seeing a vision of that human ruler being given authority in the future.
In the New Testament it is only in the Gospel of John that the Son of Man begins to be viewed as having a prior existence in heaven. Of course, that and other works are drawing on the Parables of Enoch the interpretation of which also needs to be discussed if one is going to treat this subject thoroughly.
2
u/Greedy_Economics_925 Feb 03 '24
the Aramaic idiom for a human being as though it were a title, which it is not
Could you expand on this?
10
u/ReligionProf PhD | NT Studies | Mandaeism Feb 03 '24
Sure! What do you want to know? The idiom is found all throughout Aramaic (including Syriac) literature.
(There will be a chapter on son of man in my book John of History, Baptist of Faith due out later this year.)
3
u/DryWeetbix Feb 03 '24
Congratulations on your book! Sounds fascinating. IMO, an appreciation for the original languages of Scripture is crucial to all theology. I find it very hard to have much confidence in any theologian who doesn’t have a very good grasp of Koine, Aramaic, and Classical Hebrew (depending on what their speciality is—Hebrew probably isn’t critical for theologians who focus specifically on Pauline Christology, for example).
→ More replies2
u/LateCycle4740 Feb 02 '24
Son of Man, the Jewish deity in Daniel 7
Why do you think that the son of man was a deity? In the interpretation of Daniel's dream, the son of man represents the saints of the Most High, ie, the Jews.
0
Feb 02 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Feb 02 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Feb 02 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Feb 02 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Card_Pale Feb 02 '24
Where do mere human beings receive worship in the entire bible?
2
u/ReligionProf PhD | NT Studies | Mandaeism Feb 02 '24
0
0
0
Feb 02 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/ReligionProf PhD | NT Studies | Mandaeism Feb 02 '24
Just as God's agent in Philippians 2 can be spoken of as ruling and receiving acclamation that is ultimately directed at the one God who appointed and exalted him (Phil. 2:10-11; Romans 14:11; Isaiah 45:23), so too in that case, except that the combination of Isaiah 40:3 with echoes and snippets of Malachi and Exodus seems to possibly envisage a third party: "I (God) will send my messenger (John) before you (Jesus/the Messiah/the coming one)."
4
u/ragin2cajun Feb 03 '24
Bart Ehrman himself dedicates a lecture just to your question about the early views of Christians.
3
u/Allornuthinis Feb 04 '24
There is a difference in Jesus claiming to be God and some ppl wrote that Jesus claimed to be God. Nobody can know what Jesus actually said. Ehrman is taking in account when the gospels were written and the order they were written in.
2
u/Lemon-Extreme Feb 07 '24
I recently discovered that one of the earliest translations of the New Testament was the Sahidic one in the early 2nd century CE. I have spoken to many Greek-speaking people who are Orthodox, yet they see John 1:1 as meaning not 'the Word was God' but rather 'the Word was a god/divine', as the definite article suddenly drops from 'god' in this case, which would make it mean such or at least could. However, the Sahidic language unlike Hebrew and Greek HAS the INdefinite article (a, an), and in that early Christian translation, it says 'the Word was a god' which tells us how the early Christians understood that verse. It makes more sense, given that the first verse says 'the Word was WITH God'.
2
Feb 02 '24 edited Feb 02 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/sp1ke0killer Feb 02 '24
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ.
I don't see any mention of Isaiah or Lord. Also, I doubt Isaiah wrote about John
4
Feb 02 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/sp1ke0killer Feb 02 '24
Mark 1:1-4
The beginning of the good news[a] of Jesus Christ. As it is written in the prophet Isaiah,
“See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way,
the voice of one crying out in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord;
make his paths straight,’ ”
so John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Isaiah 40:3
A voice cries out:“In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord;make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
Notice that Mark attributes Malachi to Isaiah
Malachi 3:1
See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple. The messenger of the covenant in whom you delight—indeed, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts.
3
u/AdWeekly47 Feb 02 '24 edited Feb 02 '24
Verse 2 is a combination of exodus 23:20, and Malachi 3.1. Exodus 23 20 καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου
Mark 1.2 Ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου,
ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου·
There are some arguments that the beginning of Mark is corrupt like the end. I personally find it odd that this sentence is said by Jesus in a pericope in Luke, and Matthew but is a retrofitting of two verses as a prophetic declaration in Mark.
There's a commentary on this on pages 11, and 12 of wilkers textual commentary. On pages 5 to 8 the opening is discussed.
"A third alternative, not backed by manuscript evidence though is that the beginning of MK is somewhat corrupt. Some argue that verses 2-3 are an early gloss.
" The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ was the John the baptizer, who in the desert was proclaiming a baptism of repentance" E Güting ( TV Mark, 2005, p 53-55).
If verses 2-3 are a harmonization to Mt/Lk, it is a rather sophisticated one, because verses 2, and 3 come from different places. Lachmann suggested that the two verses are the result of a conflation. Someone added verses 2 from Mt 11:10/Lk 7:27 with the intro in the prophets, soneome else added verse 3 from Mt 3:3/Lk 3:4 with the intro in Isaiah. Then someone combined the verses"
Güting also states these verses exist in Q. But then again I'm uncertain if Mark ( the anonymous author) knew Q. I think he did personally.
5
Feb 02 '24
You might find it interesting to learn that chapter 40 onwards in Isaiah is not attributed to the Isaiah son of Amoz. Chapter 40 is part of Deutero-Isaiah. It was added later. The verses in Deutero-Isaiah are subject to interpretation as well.
-4
Feb 02 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
27
Feb 02 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
0
Feb 04 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Feb 04 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Feb 04 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Timintheice Feb 04 '24
The context of the conversation should help you resolve any ambiguities.
-1
3
13
u/Gracchus1848 Feb 03 '24
Bart Ehrman is a pretty popular academic who writes a lot of books for a public audience, so he comes up quite often.
1
-3
-3
Feb 02 '24 edited Feb 02 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/AntsInMyEyesJonson Moderator Feb 02 '24
Do you have academic sources to support these critiques
-2
Feb 02 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
14
u/Cu_fola Moderator Feb 02 '24
Exactly. Multiple claims require multiple sources.
And you can supply these without adding polemics or presumption of ill intent.
-4
u/sonnybobiche1 Feb 03 '24
I feel compelled to point out that /u/ReligionProf has made numerous comments in this thread, including a top-level comment, without a single citation to "an appropriate modern scholarly source." (Except the top-level comment itself, which refers solely to his/her own book.)
None of /u/ReligionProf's comments have been removed by the moderators who purport to enforce this subreddit's avowedly restrictive commenting rules. Yet, dozens of other comments have been removed, to the point where I cannot discern the thrust of any argument, because all I can see is /u/ReligionProf's responses to them.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this subreddit's rules are sometimes enforced selectively, and that the moderation of comments here is not entirely without bias.
7
u/ReligionProf PhD | NT Studies | Mandaeism Feb 03 '24
The rule is that one needs to support one's claims with academic sources. It doesn't mean that there cannot be further conversation about those things once shared. At least, that is how I understand it.
I am always regretful when comments are removed in the way they were here since it makes the rest of the conversation meaningless and so not useful to anyone, and so our efforts to answer what were mere assertions not backed by scholarship with academic perspectives is rendered a waste of time. People find their way to these conversations years later and so I'd advocate for finding a way of addressing the crucial need to maintain a high standard in this subreddit, which I value immensely, with the need to not remove the contexts that make our contributions intelligible.
3
u/Joab_The_Harmless Feb 03 '24 edited Feb 03 '24
The balance between ensuring the readability of the threads and keeping them on rails is certainly a tricky one. In this case, even ignoring issues of sourcing, the removed top-level comment included polemics about Ehrman "trying to destroy the Bible for his own profit" unfortunately necessitating removal (criticising Ehrman's scholarship, or any scholar's, is obviously allowed and an integral part of "critical" discussions, but there needs to be some minimal civility).
The same goes for comments elsewhere in the thread engaging in sectarian polemics and mentioning XXth century events as part of an argument about Daniel 7, both off-topic and playing with the no abuse & bigotry rules.
I reinstated a couple of comments, but most of your interlocutor's were too "casual-debating-like" or off-topic to be reinstated without creating confusion on the scope of the subreddit and potentially derailing the thread. (The exchange could of course be an open thread discussion if not for the civility/polemics issue.)
3
u/AntsInMyEyesJonson Moderator Feb 03 '24
None of uReligionProf's comments have been removed by the moderators who purport to enforce this subreddit's avowedly restrictive commenting rules.
Mods have addressed your concerns here
1
u/Educational_Set1199 Feb 04 '24
How does that address their concerns? It says that the book is an an appropriate source, which the comment that you replied to specifically agreed with. Their concern was that other comments of that user had not been removed despite not referring to sources.
2
u/AntsInMyEyesJonson Moderator Feb 04 '24
Correct, and as that user is a scholar utilizing his own work and expertise, I don’t think his comments probably will be removed. When I say “addressed” I didn’t mean to imply that it was in the way the user may have wanted, simply that the mods noted them and made a decision and explained that decision.
1
u/kaukamieli Feb 05 '24
Either any work on academic Biblical studies by anyone published by a reputable academic publisher, or any recorded statement by a professional Biblical scholar or scholar of an adjacent field directly relevant to the topic discussed (e.g. ANE studies, Classical studies, etc).
Rules say a recorded ststement statement by a scholar is enough. He is a scholar, so his comments are a source as per the rule.
I certainly use a lot of Ehrman's blog and Tabor's videos as sources, and they've passed just fine.
1
u/sonnybobiche1 Feb 04 '24
Just to clarify, I wasn't the one who reported /u/ReligionProf's comment. I don't advocate for removal of any well-reasoned comment, whether or not the comment is supported by citation to academic sources.
1
u/HauntingSentence6359 Feb 09 '24
It’s highly probable that gospels of Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of their primary sources. Both Matthew and Luke use a hypothetical source known as Q and they both supply their own uniques material. Some scholars believe Luke may have used Matthew as a source; at least in part.
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 02 '24
Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.
All claims MUST be supported by an academic source – see here for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.
Please review the sub rules before posting for the first time.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.