Editorial Reviews
From Booklist
Ehrman, who has written prolifically about early Christianity, here takes up one of religious history’s most profound questions: How did a messianic Jewish preacher become identified as God? This is a particularly astonishing phenomenon when one considers how fast it happened and how different the idea of Jesus as God was from Jesus’ actual message. Ehrman writes very personally, especially in the beginning, and this approach draws the reader into a subject that is littered with curves and contradictions. Eventually, all writers who tackle this topic must answer the fundamental question: Did Jesus’ followers actually see a resurrected Christ? Ehrman sets up his answer well, first considering the various interpretations of divine humanity in ancient times. When it comes to the resurrection, he explains that whether the apostles actually saw Jesus or saw a vision makes no difference. Their belief in a risen Jesus is what shifted and shaped Christianity. A discussion of later Christologies and heresies becomes complicated, but this fascinating discussion will engage—and provoke—a wide audience. --Ilene Cooper
Review
HOW JESUS BECAME GOD makes the most astonishing and complex topic in the history of Christianity accessible to every reader, and offers a clear and balanced discussion of how various Christians–and non- Christians-see Jesus. -- Elaine Pagels, professor of religion at Princeton University and author of The Gnostic Gospels
“ In this lively and provocative book, Ehrman gives a nuanced and wide-ranging discussion of early Christian Christology. Tracing the developing understanding of Jesus, Ehrman shows his skills as an interpreter of both biblical and nonbiblical texts. This is an important, accessible work by a scholar of the first rank.” -- Michael Coogan, Harvard Divinity School lecturer and editor of The New Oxford Annotated Bible
“Ehrman writes with vigor and clarity, but above all with intellectual honesty. He demystifies a subject on which biblical scholars too often equivocate. Both believers and non-believers can learn much from this book.” -- John J. Collins, Holmes Professor of Old Testament at Yale
“This careful book starts where the ‘historical Jesus’ accounts ends and lays out how this absorbing story continued for centuries. Candid and direct, it unfolds what often seem to be the unnecessarily complicated controversies that divided early Christians in a fair and understandable manner.” -- Harvey Cox, Hollis Research Professor of Divinity at Harvard
“How did ancient monotheism allow the One God to have a ‘son’? Bart Ehrman tells this story, introducing the reader to a Jewish world thick with angels, cosmic powers, and numberless semi-divinities. How Jesus Became God provides a lively overview of Nicea’s prequel.” -- Paula Fredriksen, Distinguished Visiting Professor at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, and author of Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews
“Ehrman writes very personally, especially in the beginning, and this approach draws the reader into a subject that is littered with curves and contradictions... This fascinating discussion will engage―and provoke―a wide audience.” -- Booklist
“Ehrman’s book raises questions that should interest us all... [and] represents a genuine conversation among informed scholars.” -- Christian Century
“Bart Ehrman has made a career of zeroing in on some of the most difficult questions at the intersection of faith and history.” -- Boston Globe
Read more
Product details
Publisher : HarperOne; 1st Edition (March 25, 2014)
Language : English
Hardcover : 416 pages
Customer Reviews: 4.5 out of 5 stars 1,113 ratings
Bart D. Ehrman
Follow
Biography
Bart D. Ehrman is the author of more than twenty books, including the New York Times bestselling Misquoting Jesus and God's Problem. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and is a leading authority on the Bible and the life of Jesus. He has been featured in Time and has appeared on Dateline NBC, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, CNN, the History Channel, major NPR shows, and other top media outlets. He lives in Durham, N.C.
Customer reviews
4.5 out of 5 stars
Top reviews from the United States
H.E.Potter
5.0 out of 5 stars An intellectual read. Not for those whose faith beliefs are inflexible. An academic account of how humans interpret history.
Reviewed in the United States on September 18, 2017
Verified Purchase
From a strictly layman's historical view, it is an interesting essay on how a prophet two thousand years ago could come to be declared a "God".
BE WARNED...purely historical accounts, and scientific interpretations regarding the origins of the divinity of Jesus Christ, do not mix well with "Faith" and "Religious Belief Systems". This is not a book for those who read the bible as the unchanging word of God. This is an account of how the author sees human interactions, verbal traditions, cultural interactions, and mixed interpretations of the many languages in which the bible was written, and their impact on current belief systems. It's not written in stone, it's not infallible, it's just an interesting insight as to how one author sees how the Jesus story came to be what it is today.
124 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
Evelyn Uyemura
VINE VOICE
4.0 out of 5 stars Scholarly but simple
Reviewed in the United States on June 18, 2015
Verified Purchase
I was flipping through this book and found that Dr. Ehrman had followed a path similar to my own, attending Moody Bible Institute and later losing his faith in Christianity and God, so I decided to buy the book. I found the book extremely clear and easy to understand, and I was familiar with many of the theological debates about the New Testament textual evidences and about early church heresies and disputes, so nothing in here was particularly shocking to me, though it could certainly have shock value to anyone who thinks they just read the Bible, believe it all, and come up with orthodox evangelical theology.
One point that I find particularly persuasive, in terms of the question of whether Jesus himself claimed to be God or the Son of God and equal with God, is his comment, repeated a couple of times, about how different the Gospel of John is. Anyone with a more than passing knowledge of the 4 gospels sees this, and anyone with a study bible knows that the gospel of John was written last, probably at least 60 or 70 years after the death of Jesus.
But the key point he makes is that Mark, for instance, never has Jesus say any of the exalted, poetic things that John puts in his mouth. So Ehrman's question is: if, in fact, Jesus went around saying "Before Abraham was, I am," how could Mark have left that out? How could the 3 synoptic gospels have such subtle hints of God-claims, if Jesus actually said the things John attributes to him? To have heard those things from the mouth of Jesus, but just passed them over when writing down the gospels is not imaginable. If I had a hero or leader who taught me a lot of things, and who also claimed frequently to be the son of John D. Rockefeller, it would be pretty strange for me to write a book about him and leave out that last key point, even though it would not technically be false to omit it--but something that would add to the credibility of what he said would be an odd thing to omit.
The reason I don't give the book 5 stars is that it is almost over-simplified and repetitive in some ways. I feels to me like lecture notes written up as a book, where each time class meets, the professor starts by reviewing where we were last time. It does make the book very clear, but almost too much so. And sometimes, I just felt tired of the conclusions of biblical textual scholars--this book claims to have been written by Paul, but we don't think it was for reason x, this passage says y, but it was most likely added and so it actually means z, etc. The textual; critics may be right, but it just isn't persuasive to most readers that a letter that says, I, Paul, am writing to you in Colossae," (or wherever) was actually written 100 years after Paul's death. And I recall that a lot of scholarship about the Old Testament doubts the accuracy of OT texts, until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. So although I am not a believer, I just find some of the scholarly reasoning tedious.
The audience that would gain the most from this book are doubters, ie people within Christianity who are feeling uncomfortable with it, wondering if it's true, and want to know more about how we got from the time of Jesus to where we are now. Any study of how we got our bible, how orthodoxy came to be arrived at, how the early church actually functioned, is salient for a person who wants to know whether what they have been taught about the Bible and about Jesus really holds water. If you read this book and then conclude that Jesus was eternally the Son of God who came down from heaven, then you are standing on firmer ground. And if you find that ground shifting under your feet, keep inquiring until you find a satisfactory place to stand.
Read less
281 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
Russ Heitz
5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent history of early Christian beliefs and how they changed over time
Reviewed in the United States on July 9, 2018
Verified Purchase
This is an exceptionally well written study by a meticulous historian about how the assessment of Jesus changed from the time he was alive until after he was executed via crucifixion. It argues convincingly that it wasn’t until AFTER Jesus was crucified, that some of the apostles and later followers began to see him as a person of divine lineage who was, in fact, a mystical part of Almighty God.
In a nutshell, the author believes that the original apostles saw Jesus, simply, as a very human and very Jewish preacher who had an apocalyptic message that the world would soon be brought to an end by God who would then set up a kingdom of God on the earth. Jesus—the original twelve believed—would be put in charge of the earth and the disciples would be responsible for governing the world, under Jesus’s supervision, and according to God’s laws. Jesus preached that this apocalyptic change would happen very soon, like within the next few years. And this is also what most of the original apostles believed: the Kingdom of God would be established “any day now.”
But before this kingdom of God could actually be established, Jesus was arrested by the Romans and executed (crucified) for preaching an insurrection message that was directed toward the Roman Empire which, at that time, ruled the entire middle-eastern area of the world.
Soon after Jesus’s death, however, the disciples began to have visions and revelations that convinced them that Jesus had in fact been raised from the dead by God Himself. Some of the disciples believed that they had even seen and spoken to the risen Jesus and because he was raised from the dead—they came to believe—Jesus MUST be a God-like figure, who was actually sent from God. As the certainty of these beliefs solidified, the disciples began to preach this new message of a risen—and now divine—Jesus who was sent from God to save mankind.
As the “Christian church” began to grow, spread to different areas of that near-eastern part of the world, and gain more converts, it gradually became the Catholic Church, (“catholic” meaning “universal”). When this happened, efforts were made by the church’s leaders—various bishops and, eventually, popes—to “explain” and “clarify” some of the contradictions that cropped up as the “message” began to expand and the “beliefs” became more sophisticated but also more and more paradoxical.
These controversial beliefs often had to do with the nature of Jesus and how he was related to God the Father as well as to the Holy Spirit. Other controversies also developed regarding Jesus’s existence: had he existed throughout eternity or was he ‘created’ by God to come to earth and save mankind? Also, how could there be one God, while at the same time, Jesus and the Holy Spirit also existed as separate beings but were nonetheless part of God. This conflict eventually resulted in the paradoxical concept of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three entities, but all one God.
These theological controversies, and many more besides, continued to tumble around for several centuries as the Catholic Church tried to come up with a set of consistent beliefs and principles that every one who wanted to be ‘saved’ had to obey. When Constantine became the ruler of the Roman Empire he also became a believer in the Christian message. He encouraged the leaders of the Church to meet, discuss and then establish a set of principles that all the church leaders could agree on. These principles should also prohibit and eliminate the many “heretical” beliefs that were flooding the Empire at that time. Soon afterward, Christianity became the “official” religion of the Roman Empire and paganism was outlawed. Shortly after that, nearly 50% of the citizens of the Roman Empire became “Christians.” This new belief then spread to most of the “Western World.”
Over time, the various beliefs of the young Christian movement continued to change, grow, modify, be accepted, and also rejected, by various church leaders. Many of the ‘“orthodox” views of one generation became the “heresies” of the next generation of believers and church leaders. Some of the disputes are still going on today, the author says, and the Catholic Church is still refining its message and its dogma and beliefs. This, of course, is also true of the countless forms and denominations of “protestant” churches that make up what is called the “Christian religion” of today.
This is a well-written, convincingly argued, and thoroughly-researched HISTORY book about the early days of the “Christian religion.” It is a book that says: “This is what various church leaders believed in the first few hundred years during the growth and development of the religion of Christianity.” It is NOT a “THEOLOGY” book: it makes no claims about the “truth” or “falsehood” of any particular belief. It simply says: “This is what people believed about Jesus and God during that time period and how those beliefs changed and were modified and/or rejected over time.”
This is altogether excellent study about the varying and changeable beliefs that were believed and accepted (or rejected) by the early followers of Christianity.
Russ Heitz
Read less
64 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
See all reviews
Top reviews from other countries
Calgacus83
5.0 out of 5 stars An Essential, Enjoyable and Enlightening Read !
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on April 12, 2015
Verified Purchase
This is an excellently written and presented book - scholarly erudition at its most accessible best - another page-turner from Bart Ehrman. It builds its case in a clear, step-by-step manner, and demonstrates how many theological and christological "solutions", tortuously and antagonistically "arrived at", address self-created (and therefore non-existent) "problems". If he dropped in on us today, the man from Nazareth would, I think, be flabbergasted rather than flattered - and become an instant fan of Bart Ehrman. This is essential reading - not only for 'the questioning' like me, but also for 'the convinced', who need to be open to this kind of historical and ideological scrutiny to retain integrity and credibility - one of the best books I've so far read this year.
10 people found this helpful
Report abuse
silver disc addict
5.0 out of 5 stars Fascinating
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on May 4, 2018
Verified Purchase
A fascinating detailed account; surprisingly easy to read and very illuminating.
This book got a hardened skeptic really interested in the New Testament and its eccentricities.
3 people found this helpful
Report abuse
David John Laird
5.0 out of 5 stars Jesus
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on September 22, 2018
Verified Purchase
Very thought provoking and raises the old question of Jesus divinity and whether it came from God or the surroundings, beliefs and people the 1st century.
3 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Mike
5.0 out of 5 stars Great book, in this book Bart Ehrman goes through ...
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on May 3, 2018
Verified Purchase
Great book, in this book Bart Ehrman goes through the development of Christianity and the divinity of Jesus which culminates in him being regarded as GOD. I would recommend
3 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Abubaker Sewa
5.0 out of 5 stars Great book, you have to read it!
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on August 29, 2020
Verified Purchase
Great book, really enlightening for curious mind
Report abuse
----
How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee
by Bart D. Ehrman
4.04 · Rating details · 4,546 ratings · 582 reviews
New York Times bestselling author and Bible expert Bart Ehrman reveals how Jesus’s divinity became dogma in the first few centuries of the early church.
The claim at the heart of the Christian faith is that Jesus of Nazareth was, and is, God. But this is not what the original disciples believed during Jesus’s lifetime—and it is not what Jesus claimed about himself. How Jesus Became God tells the story of an idea that shaped Christianity, and of the evolution of a belief that looked very different in the fourth century than it did in the first.
A master explainer of Christian history, texts, and traditions, Ehrman reveals how an apocalyptic prophet from the backwaters of rural Galilee crucified for crimes against the state came to be thought of as equal with the one God Almighty, Creator of all things. But how did he move from being a Jewish prophet to being God? In a book that took eight years to research and write, Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection. Only when some of Jesus’s followers had visions of him after his death—alive again—did anyone come to think that he, the prophet from Galilee, had become God. And what they meant by that was not at all what people mean today.
Written for secular historians of religion and believers alike, How Jesus Became God will engage anyone interested in the historical developments that led to the affirmation at the heart of Christianity: Jesus was, and is, God. (less)
GET A COPY
KoboOnline Stores ▾Book Links ▾
Hardcover, 416 pages
Published March 25th 2014 by HarperOne (first published March 2014)
Original TitleHow Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee
Edition LanguageEnglish
Other Editions (18)
How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation Of A Jewish Preacher from Galilee
How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee
How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee
Cum a devenit Isus Dumnezeu: preamărirea unui predicator evreu din Galileea
How Jesus Became God: From Good Teacher to Divine Savior
All Editions | Add a New Edition | Combine
...Less DetailEdit Details
FRIEND REVIEWS
Recommend This Book None of your friends have reviewed this book yet.
READER Q&A
Ask the Goodreads community a question about How Jesus Became God
54355902. uy100 cr1,0,100,100
Ask anything about the book
Popular Answered Questions
Does this book see Jesus from a Christian or from a Jewish perspective?
Like 3 Years Ago See All 5 Answers
Gary more of an history perspective.
…more
flag
For the record, the hardcover version of book is about 370 pages long
Like 6 Years Ago See All 2 Answers
Paula Stiles Amazon is inaccurate. I am holding the book in my hands and if you include the index, it is 404 pages long. Exactly.
flag
See 2 questions about How Jesus Became God…
LISTS WITH THIS BOOK
The Cross of Christ by John R.W. StottSeeing and Savoring Jesus Christ by John PiperThe Challenge of Jesus by N.T. WrightThe Passion of Jesus Christ by John PiperThe Jesus I Never Knew by Philip Yancey
Books About Jesus
240 books — 130 voters
Jesus, Interrupted by Bart D. EhrmanMisquoting Jesus by Bart D. EhrmanThe Challenge of Jesus by N.T. WrightZealot by Reza AslanJesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham
Best Historical Jesus Books
124 books — 89 voters
More lists with this book...
COMMUNITY REVIEWS
Showing 1-30
Average rating4.04 · Rating details · 4,546 ratings · 582 reviews
Search review text
English (550)
More filters | Sort order
Sejin,
Sejin, start your review of How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee
Write a review
Will Byrnes
May 17, 2014Will Byrnes rated it really liked it
Shelves: brain-candy, religion-and-sprituality, religion
And it came to pass that I read and ye shall learn of a pretty amazing book. Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman takes on the subject of how, in history, the notion of Jesus as god developed. Was it there from the beginning? How did it arise? What does it even mean? Was he considered divine by believers before conception, at conception, at baptism by John, when he died on the cross, when he rose from the dead, when he headed upstairs to the executive offices? And the answer? Yes.
As with many mysteries there is a paucity of physical evidence. One might consider Ehrman’s task a very challenging episode of [Incredibly] Cold Case Files, or maybe fodder for a new version of a favorite show (as if there are not enough already) CSI Antiquity.
Not much to work with here as far as physical evidence goes, but Ehrman does apply his considerable skill to analyzing what documentation we have, tracing provenance, to the extent possible, applying what we know of the period(s), and lasering in on crucial questions.
description
The author
Ehrman makes it very clear that he is not about trying to turn anyone away from a particular set of beliefs.
I do not take a stand on the theological question of Jesus’s divine status. I am instead interested in the historical development that led to the affirmation that he is God.
Or who said what, and when, where and why did they say it? And who saw what, where, when, how and why?
My knowledge of the period is extremely limited. Twelve years of Catholic school taught me a lot more about obedience than it did about biblical scholarship, and while I have read the odd book here and there about the period, I claim no particular expertise, so am not in a position to offer a particularly educated consideration of the information presented here. Ehrman, on the other hand, has written vast amounts on things biblical. I refer you to his considerable bona fides, here. I am inclined to give his very accomplished, educated interpretation of the material he examines a bit more weight than I might the opinions proffered by individuals boasting lesser scholarly accomplishment.
Key, of course, is the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Without that there is no such thing as Christianity, as prophets and Messiahs were sold by the gross at the dollar-store equivalent of the era. In fact, Ehrman opens his book citing an unnamed individual whom one might expect is JC, as the details are incredibly reminiscent. But no, it turns out to be another prophet entirely. (No, not Brian) His pilot was not picked up by the world at large, so you might find him in the antiquity channel’s version of “Brilliant but Cancelled.” And he was not alone. But, since any Tom. Dick, and Appolonius could claim to be a prophet, it was the claim that Jesus was resurrected that was key to a long run, and Ehrman focuses on that.
He looks into the details of Jesus’s death and supposed return. For example, how likely was it that he was buried at all? The answer will surprise you. How about the likelihood that someone who had just tried to have him done in would arrange a burial? How likely might it be for wanted criminals, as the apostles were, to stick around after their chief had been so harshly treated? It continues, but you get the idea. Each tiny piece needs to be examined.
One of the things that Ehrman does consistently and well is to define terms. Divine? In what sense? There is a lot of variety in levels of divinity. Ehrman points out a pyramidal structure common to many religions, and how supposedly monotheistic faiths shuck and jive trying to explain how the multiple divine entities in their religions do not violate the monotheism-shrink-wrap guarantee covenant (it’s in the mouse print). He applies his piercing logic to notions of resurrection as well.
For [most ancient people—whether Christian, Jewish, or pagan] the human realm was not an absolute category separated from the divine realm by an enormous and unbridgeable crevasse. On the contrary, the human and divine were two continuums that could, and did, overlap.
(Bette Midler knows about that, for sure) So what was it that was supposedly seen?
It was widely believed in antiquity that the spirit we have within us was also made of “stuff.” It was material. But it was very highly refined material that could not be seen with the eyes. (Kind of like what people think when they imagine they’ve seen a “ghost”—there’s something there, made of stuff, since it can be seen, even though it’s pure spirit.) When Paul speaks of a spiritual body, then, he means a body not made up of this heavy, clunky stuff that now makes up our bodies, but of the highly refined, spiritual stuff that is superior in every way and is not subject to mortality.
Who knew there was such a level of detail to consider? Was the risen Jesus made of chunky human flesh or the sort ectoplasm more usually associated with someone like, say, Slimer. Or was he some ethereal non-substance?
And what about the veracity of the stories that were told of the supposed resurrection?
Even apart from the fact that they were written forty to sixty-five years after the facts, by people who were not there to see these things happen, who were living in different parts of the world, at different times, and speaking different languages—apart from all this, they are filled with discrepancies, some of which cannot be reconciled. In fact, the Gospels disagree on nearly every detail in their resurrection narratives
So, we are relying, in the gospels at least, on an inconsistent story, from multiple non-witnesses, that was the end result of a decades-long biblical version of the game telephone? These days, of course, you can probably become a god, or at least obtain, Wizard-of-Oz-style, a document attesting to your divinity, by sending a certain sum to a particular web site. (GodsRUs.com would be my guess). It was so much more complicated back then.
So, what might be less than divine in Ehrman’s examination? Well, we are digging through some very old material here, and it is not surprising that in a book focused in the Middle East a bit of sand gets in. The level of detail does, on occasion, cause one’s eyes to ascend to another level of being. But I found this a fascinating, and educational read, opening up many notions to consideration that I had never really thought about. Whatever it may do for your spirit, this book will definitely stimulate your brain.
Whether you find this examination of history divinely inspired or deserving a place on the lower levels of you-know-where, it is certainly a fascinating look at a critical element of history, and, by implication, religious belief. But don’t take my word for it. See, feel and read it for yourself. And if it doesn’t work for you the first time, hey, you can always come back to it.
Posted May 23, 2014
=============================EXTRA STUFF
Links to the author’s personal, Twitter and FB pages
Ehrman’s blog, Christianty in Antiquity
Check here for a very nifty collection of audio and video clips of the author (less)
flag212 likes · Like · 28 comments · see review
BlackOxford
Jul 07, 2018BlackOxford rated it really liked it
Shelves: biblical, philosophy-theology
The Aberrant Religion
Christians, or more precisely Paul of Tarsus, invented not just a religion but also a new form of religion, one constituted by belief rather than by ethical or ritual action. This religion is markedly different from that which was practiced by its nominal focus, Jesus. And it is different from all contemporary and subsequent religions. It is a religion which claims to know the ultimate truth about reality and demands that its adherents accept, profess, and, if called upon to do so, enforce that truth. Such a religion, based on correct belief, is bound to insist that its own origins are divine in order to justify its claim. Faith, that is, created the divine Jesus as an epistemological imperative.*
The above is my view not Ehrman’s. But it could easily form the overarching theory for which Ehrman, and the scholars on which he bases his argument, provide the factual data: Faith, once adopted as the principle of finding out about the world, inevitably leads to the divinization of some part or aspect of the world. The object of faith is not the source of faith but its essential product. This object is not born complete in the minds and culture of a group but evolves as necessary to protect the principle of faith itself, adapting and, where necessary, distorting, the existing, usually implicit, epistemological principles as it proceeds. The narrative of How Jesus Became God outlines this historical process.
Faith, in other words, manufactures a guarantee for its own validity. It constitutes a self-sealing system of thought which is impenetrable. Faith also attaches to what is available to ‘prove’ itself. Paul in his writings, the earliest in Christianity, uses what is convenient (but never central) in Hebrew literature to make his point. No wonder he frequently appears somewhat confused about his object, which is only of secondary importance. This object was not a man, since Paul never met Jesus and apparently knew next to nothing about his life. Nor was it the authority of a religious tradition or scripture, since Paul took great pains to show why historical Judaism was wrong. Faith for Paul is a kind of intellectual obstinacy.
Paul’s object of faith was a vague idea, his own, which he called Christ. The precise character of this idea was uncertain to him and to his contemporaries. Paul hints at its divinity but can’t seem to make up his mind about what that means. Only subsequently is the confusion reduced, after perhaps six or more generations of faithful believers have a go at retelling, embellishing and editing the stories they have heard about Jesus.** Even then the confusion about Paul’s object never is completely eliminated. Conflicts, heresies, and intellectual politics are the hallmarks of Paul’s religion of faith to the present day.
The reason for such continuing conflict of course is that Pauline Christianity is an extremely literal affair. Whatever the object of faith, that object must be formulated in words before it can be attested by believers. The formula is the only reality of concern, no matter how arcane, incomprehensible, or self-contradictory it may be. Language not experience becomes definitive. Thus the creed (from Latin credere, to believe) takes the place of any emotional or spiritual event in religious life. This, of course, places language itself in the position of a divine, and therefore unchanging, entity. And this in turn necessitates ecclesiastical control of the meaning and interpretation of language. Ultimately, religious authority claims its place not just as the arbiter of doctrine but also as the arbiter of thought itself.
Christianity is, consequently, a decidedly aberrant form of thought. Aberrant because it is a departure from every other standard of thought, philosophical or religious, that has ever been proposed. But it is also aberrant in its classification of all other modes of thought as various sorts of belief in competition with itself, as statements of alternative belief rather than what they are: ethical and liturgical rituals... and some very fine poetry that no one takes literally.
The world, Pauline Christianity claims, cannot live without faith and refuses to admit even the possibility that faith is its own questionable invention. Christianity’s self-guarantee is constituted by the Incarnation and Resurrection, the doctrines of God’s becoming a part of his own creation and overcoming it - not as explanatory myth, or edifying example, or evocatively fey poetry but as certain truth. It is not sufficient to act as if these doctrines were true; it is necessary to convince oneself fervently and without hesitation that they are true in order to be ‘saved.’ This distinguishes Christianity not only from all other religions but from all other modes of thinking.
Therefore, according to Christianity, the object of faith is of central relevance to human life. Of course, in the ensuing debate about this object, Christianity has both the home team advantage as well as age on its side. The Christian apologetic makes all religion a matter of faith: Judaism is incomplete faith; Islam is erroneous faith, Buddhism doesn’t merit the term faith at all; and polytheism, ancient and modern, is childish, superstitious faith. Atheism, of course, is simply ungrounded faith because it refuses to specify a divine object. The issue being pressed is faith not Jesus - this is the perennial sleight of hand which has been performed by Christian apologists in plain sight for two millennia.
So I think that Ehrman has done a service in summarising the historical, sociological, and biblical research about how Jesus became God. But I also think he misses something important about why Jesus became God. This why it seems to me is inherent in Paul’s conception of faith as the essence of religion. Once his premise about faith is accepted, something or someone has to be supplied as its object. Anything will do, no matter how mundane or abstract. Paul invented Christ as that object. More modern folk, imbued with the Pauline spirit, have substituted any number of cult leaders, other arcane deities, language in the form of uncertain ancient texts, or even alien beings as their objects of faith.
To put the matter bluntly, if somewhat crudely: Paul’s most enduring contribution to the world is not his promotion of the divinisation of Jesus. Rather it is his establishment of the principle of faith as a legitimate criterion for human action and a requirement for authentic religion. To put it even more crudely, it is this same Paul who has provided the world with its first defensible theory of terror: faith justifies. It justifies not just unkindness, but also cruelty, murder, war and the continuous persecution of any who oppose the idea of faith. Medieval Crusaders, ISIS, the Know-Nothing American fundamentalists, and the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo cult all share Paul’s theology of a justifying faith. It seems to me obvious that the evolution of this theory of faith has come to mean far more than the question of Jesus’s divinity.
* For what Paul means by faith, see: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... and https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
**Ehrman has raised considerable ire among evangelicals by suggesting that the idea of Jesus’s divinity evolved. Authors like Larry Hurtado claim that the recognition of his divine status was ‘explosive’ and complete ab initio. This despite a clear development in thought from Paul’s epistles to John’s gospel, a period of seventy years or more (and some rather different accounts in the intervening Synoptic Gospels). The indisputable fact that the character of Jesus’s divinity remained problematic even among fervent believers over centuries also undermines any claim to ‘explosive certainty’. One reason why I am concerned to shift attention to the epistemological principle of faith is that it really doesn’t matter whether the ‘revelation’ of Christianity was more or less instantaneous or developed in the course of time. Once faith becomes the criterion of truth, it demands a divine object. Paul apparently had such an explosive experience. Others had to interpret his reports. In doing so, they differed, and continue to differ, in their opinions about what he meant. To claim instant recognition would seem absurd as well as irrelevant. (less)
flag167 likes · Like · 59 comments · see review
Darwin8u
Apr 06, 2014Darwin8u rated it liked it
Shelves: 2014
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. - Revelation 3:16
description
'How Jesus Became God' is a good packaging of current scholarship on the historical Jesus for the neophyte. The book basically explores how the crucified Jesus transformed into not just the Messiah, but the Lord of all creation. He examines the exaltation of Jesus from an apocalyptic preacher from Galilee into a figure fully equal with God. He looks at how this type of change happened in Greek and Roman culture, in Jewish culture, and how Paul and later disciples of Christ were influential in transforming their crucified prophet into their risen Lord. He also spends a fair amount of time explaining why it is impossible for historians to validate miracles, a person's divinity or specific religious events like Christ's resurrection.
Perhaps, I was just wishing for a bit more meat on the bones of this book or perhaps I was just not that surprised by many of Ehrman's points (He has covered several sections of this book in previous books about early Christianity and Jesus), but I kinda felt like this was just a watered-down repackaging of some of his better, more academic past efforts. Nothing too revelatory or Earth shattering. For me, it was about the same level of writing as Aslan's Zealot. It just seems these books while aiming for a bit of controversy (controversy sells), don't load their books with enough weight. Those who agree with them have already traveled a bunch of this same ground, those who don't agree with them are served a slim dish that seems a bit too facile. Or maybe it was just me. (less)
flag53 likes · Like · 18 comments · see review
Anne
Mar 06, 2019Anne marked it as did-not-finish
Shelves: read-in-2019, history-stuff, non-fiction
DNF 20%
I may come back to this one someday. It wasn't horrible, but it was a bit too dry and crunchy for me to be able to really get into it. Non-fiction isn't my jam, but the subject matter is interesting to me, so I think I'll try a different book by this author later on. (less)
flag36 likes · Like · 19 comments · see review
Max
Oct 21, 2018Max rated it really liked it
Shelves: world-history
Ehrman dissects the scriptures to show how beliefs about Jesus’s divinity formed and changed in early Christian communities. He does not dwell on his personal beliefs, although he mentions that he started out as an evangelical Christian and has become a skeptic. His thesis is that during Jesus lifetime his followers did not regard Jesus as God. It was belief in the resurrection that first persuaded early Christians to believe Jesus was divine and even God, but what this meant to different Christians varied widely. Ancients did not have the same perception of God as Christians do today. Again Ehrman is not espousing his personal beliefs. He does not say that he personally believes that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, only that this became an accepted belief among early Christians.
Underlying Ehrman’s conclusions is his methodology. He relies primarily on the gospels, the Pauline epistles and the book of Acts. Except for Paul we do not know who the actual authors were, but we can tell that they were well educated writing in Greek and far different from the lower class illiterate Aramaic speaking followers of Jesus. Ehrman breaks these scriptures down into their underlying sources based on the construction, style of writing, vocabulary and consistency. For example, the author of Luke is also identified as the author of Acts, but not all of Luke came originally from the same source. Luke, Mark and Matthew are based on some of the same original materials and thus similar to each other. John is very different and was written later. All were written well after the death of Jesus and likely based on oral traditions that were later converted to writing. Also our earliest existing copies of the gospels were made centuries later and subject to changes made by the scribes. These changes too can often be teased out. Paul’s writings are the closest in time to the death of Jesus but say relatively little about what Jesus said or did. Ehrman points out that even some parts of Paul’s writings are copied from an earlier source and some letters ascribed to Paul were written by later followers.
Ehrman then analyses the sources for consistency. He identifies, as have many others, some sources shared by the gospels called Q, M, and L. He then uses the “criterion of independent attestation” to determine what is likely to have been held as a common belief by Jesus’s followers. He is looking for multiple sources that say the same thing. Thus if the same thing appears in writing unique to Mark and John and Q, Ehrman accepts it. Conversely if it is only in Q, even if the same Q text shows up in both Matthew and Luke, Ehrman does not. When the same incident is reported differently in the different sources he rejects each interpretation as having been a common belief.
Ehrman also analyses the scriptures in the context of the culture and writing style of the times. The idea of God was different for ancient peoples than what we are accustomed to today. Ancient peoples had hierarchies of gods. For Romans, Jupiter and Mars might be particularly powerful, while someone like Julies Caesar or Augustus may have also been considered a god but also being human he was near the bottom in the ranks of divinity. The Jews too had hierarchies of divine beings with angels and humans ascribed varying degrees of divine powers. Thus when analyzing text it is important to understand what the text’s author meant by god. As for the writing style in antiquity, embellishment was common practice. Accuracy was often less important than making a point.
Sifting through all this Ehrman comes to the conclusion that prior to belief in the resurrection, Jesus may have been ascribed some small level of divinity by his followers but he was not considered God. Belief in the resurrection is based on visions of Jesus after his death. Ehrman only accepts that those of Peter, Paul and Mary (Magdalen) are actually proven to have taken place based on his analysis of the scriptures. Again Ehrman is not saying that Jesus actually appeared in these visions, but he does accept that those three sincerely believed they saw Jesus. Here again one has to put the visions in the context of the beliefs of ancient peoples who would much more readily accept supernatural events than people today. The belief that Jesus could not only rise from the dead but leave earth and return at will made him a powerful divinity indeed.
After Jesus death other notions of his divinity developed as diverse Christian communities formed. Some as recorded in Mark thought Jesus became divine when baptized by John the Baptist. Others as recorded in Luke thought Jesus became divine when he was conceived or born. Paul writes of Jesus as an angel who became human and then was exalted upon his death by God. Perhaps he was the Angel of the Lord referred to in the Hebrew Bible who appeared to Hagar, Abraham and Moses. Only later did the concept develop that Jesus was also God as expressed by John. John was written decades after the other three gospels and represents Jesus’s divinity very differently. John quotes Jesus affirming that he shared Godly status with the Father. John, however, was the author of these quotes, not Jesus, according to Ehrman based on his analysis. The style of language of Jesus and John are exactly the same in John’s gospel. This is totally out of context of the way Jesus would have spoken, but it is consistent with the writing style of the times. Authors regularly made up the speeches of those they were writing about to embellish their points.
In the second century the earliest Christian views became regarded as heresy and John’s view increasingly became accepted as orthodoxy. The history of early Christian beliefs was rewritten to show that the apostles and others had always shared the emerging orthodox view of Jesus nature. Opposing views were slammed by writers known as heresy hunters. The adoptionists held that Jesus was basically just human. The docetists claimed Jesus was always a spiritual being that just appeared to be human. The Gnostics believed Jesus was two beings, a human who became inhabited by a separate divine being.
What became the orthodox view accepted by most Christians by the third century held that Jesus was one being both truly human and truly God, also that he was both with God and God. But this left a question. Were there two Gods or one? Orthodoxy called for monotheism. Some ideas that were accepted as orthodox for a while later became heresy. For example those by Justin Martyr, Novatian and Arius which held that Jesus was part of God and human but not quite equal to or one with the father. The modalists believed that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Ghost were simply different expressions or modes of behavior of a singular God. The modalists too were later deemed heretics. By the fourth century the answer finally accepted as orthodox, though more perplexing, was that there were three separate persons in one God, the trinity.
The Council of Nicea in 325 CE resolved that Jesus was of one substance and coeternal with the Father. The Nicene Creed was adopted as a statement of Christian faith. Under pressure from Constantine to have a unified church for the Empire, few attending objected. As Ehrman states, “…an itinerant apocalyptic preacher from the rural backwaters of Galilee…had now become fully God.” However the Arian point of view still maintained many adherents in the fourth century. Followers of Arius believed that Jesus had been begotten by the Father and thus was not coeternal and was subordinate to the Father. The Nicene Creed was designed to cast aside the Arian point of view but it would have to wait for The Council of Constantinople in 381 to clearly establish Arianism as heresy. Other finely nuanced views evolved and were put down at succeeding ecumenical councils in the next century. Heretics were punished, but none more so than the Jews who Christian orthodoxy held responsible for killing Christ.
Ehrman stops at the fifth century. Obviously new ideas about what it means to be Christian and what Christians should believe didn’t stop. Ever since, vitriol and war between Christians have been used to establish who is right. I don’t know how accurate Ehrman is about what Jesus’s followers believed. We have no firsthand accounts. But he does create serious doubts about the reliability of the scriptures. The upshot to me is that Jesus offered a simple message to simple people only for it to be taken over and distorted by theologians, philosophers, emperors and other powerful people, the very people Jesus confronted. They turned the simple message into highly nuanced abstract metaphysical concepts that I can’t get my head around and many who disagreed lost theirs. I’ll end on a high note and recommend one of Ehrman’s favorite passages that he believes truly represents the words of Jesus. Google Matthew 25:31-46 or go to
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/... .
(less)
flag34 likes · Like · 14 comments · see review
Louise
Aug 05, 2014Louise rated it it was amazing
Shelves: bible-studies
Bart Ehrman digests biblical scholarship into an easy to read text for believers and non-believers alike. While 270pp is more than sufficient for his thesis, along the way he presents interesting concepts and the reader learns a lot about the process of biblical research.
Ehrman develops the concept that it was resurrection and its aftermath that confirmed Jesus as equal to god. In learning how "exaltation Christologies gave way to incarnation Christologies" (p. 263), I also learned a host of other new vocabulary words and terms (synoptic, hyperstasis, heresiology and docstism to name a few).
The book begins with the context of Jesus's time. Many early religions had human-deity combinations, the emperor was considered a god and it was not uncommon for gods to mate with (or rape) female mortals. While all this was present in his world, Ehrman concludes that in his lifetime Jesus did not claim divinity nor was divinity ascribed to him. Ehrman feels a case can be built that Jesus might have said he was a king, but the case for Jesus claiming divinity for himself is flimsy. There were many apocalyptic preachers in this time. Jesus, is baptized by one, and becomes one.
The reader learns how unique the gospel of John is. It is the most theological of the gospels and is the only one where Jesus is quoted as alluding to god-like status for himself.Written long after Jesus's death and resurrection, (Ehrman sees these as words ascribed to Jesus, not words he had said.) The other gospels are silent on this. Ehrman concludes that Paul considers Jesus like an angel but not the equal of a god.
In the two centuries following the death of Jesus, followers had disparate views of how to understand his life and death. Ebionites kept their Jewish customs and saw Christ as a human adopted by God. Theodotians also felt Jesus was a human adopted by god, with some members believing he was divine and others that others that he was a man "empowered" by baptism. Docetists believed him completely divine by nature. Marcionites, Gnostics, Separationists and Modalists all had different interpretations, some believing in the existence of two or more gods. Ideas were first unified by theologians Hippolytus and Tertullian into the concept of the trinity which over the centuries has endured. A description of these schools of thought is followed by a discussion on the early attempts to resolve the (human/divine) "ortho-paradoxes".
Ehrman concludes with his personal journey. He is up front (from Chapter 1), that while a biblical scholar, he is not a believer. This does not at all color this work which has plenty of information and food for thought for both believers and non-believers. To describe his personal journey he goes back to his understanding of Jesus and the apocalyptic nature of the times. Just as Jesus was "recontexturalized" in the 400 years covered in the text, he continues to be today by believers and non-believers.
While this will anger fundamentalists, others, believers and non-believers interested in this topic will appreciate the scholarship this book presents.
(less)
flag25 likes · Like · 1 comment · see review
Andrew
Jan 18, 2014Andrew rated it really liked it
Shelves: religion
When reading books about religion, it's important to read them for what they proclaim to be rather than what we wish they would be. Bart Ehrman doesn't claim to be doing theology, or offering proof for God, or [insert desired misconception here]. He styles his study as an examination of the historic process by which a first-century Jewish preacher came to be viewed as God by his followers.
It's a history of belief.
And in this narrow endeavour Ehrman succeeds. There's a firm grounding in the belief systems of the time, especially how Romans and Jews understood divinity. There's also some clever (sometimes too clever) parsing of the New Testament in admirable attempts to reconstruct the apostles' perceptions of Jesus immediately after the crucifixion. And it follows the paths by which those perceptions and beliefs evolved right up to the Council of Nicea and the orthodox belief in Jesus' twin divinity and humanity.
The requisite quota of German theologians are cited.
Follow me on Twitter: @Dr_A_Taubman (less)
flag14 likes · Like · comment · see review
Michael Finocchiaro
Nov 14, 2018Michael Finocchiaro rated it really liked it
Shelves: history, american-21st-c, religion
Bart Ehrman is an interesting writer who was himself formerly a fundamentalist preacher with a deep knowledge of all the biblical languages. He has since become a critic of Christianity and this particular book explores how interpretations of the New Testament were manipulated in the early history of the church to provide a narrative and justification for the politics of that growing organization. I found it fascinating in that it challenges a lot of seemingly immutable truths such as the authorship of the book of Revelations which was actually not written by John the Evangelist, but by another writer, as evidenced by the language and phrasing used in the original.
The book is bound to upset religious zealots, as it is often quite polemical. However, it is also factual and in this world of fake news and alternative facts, I found it a refreshing read. (less)
flag22 likes · Like · 1 comment · see review
William Mcneely
Nov 03, 2016William Mcneely rated it did not like it · review of another edition
In sum:
Bart Ehrman is an excellent writer, he draws you in with his style and his wit, as well as some moving personal autobiography. My problem with this work overall is first of all its weakness in citing sources. Yes this is not supposedly written at an academic level more of a pop-culture level, but the fact that when he cites sources it tends to be his own books--this just screams, "give me your money skeptics and doubters!" It might've been even more persuasive if he could back up his points not just from historical primary sources but also from secondary sources--scholars in the various fields he makes claims about other than his own books that he loves to cite. This book is definitely interesting, but it is quite inaccurate and leaves out many important details concerning some of passages of Scripture and the views of those who oppose him. If he wants to make a case that Jesus was deified by his followers. He may need to do a lot more work and research in regards to the arguments of the other side. While some parts were rhetorically convincing, the book was not logically convincing. Ehrman has a unique writing style and it is a shame that he is where he is at now concerning scholarship. He seems like a very kind person, so I'm not judging his character. But I do cast doubt on whether this book holds any substantive weight because of:
1.) lack of citing sources other than his other writings. (Yes he does cite others but it is predominantly his own, or those who would side with his view, or some primary sources).
2.) his exaggeration and many claims that are actually not backed up by sources
3.) it's hard to trust someone who is a skeptic, he makes such "confident claims" yet he is an agnostic on many issues. It's hard to rely on someone who has so many doubts or confidence in things already proven to be plausibly true. (less)
flag12 likes · Like · 1 comment · see review
Dennis Mitton
Mar 28, 2014Dennis Mitton rated it really liked it · review of another edition
Shelves: my-kind-of-christianity
I’ve sat in enough churches to know that sooner or later the question will rise: “If Jesus were to walk in here right now would he recognize this place as His church?” In ‘How Jesus Became God’ Bart Ehrman argues well that the answer is no. Not because the modern church is doing it wrong but because the question is wrong. Ehrman argues that our view of Jesus is an amalgam of historical fact, purposeful fiction, and a lot of wishful thinking that would probably surprise even Jesus.
During the first centuries of the Christian church there was a constant battle for the primacy of ideas. Some believed that Jesus was fully human but an excellent moral teacher. A strong argument was made that Jesus was human and adopted by God at his baptism. Gnostics argued that Jesus discovered secret knowledge that was available to anyone as a trade for mortifying the evil flesh. It surprises people today to learn that many early Christians were vehemently anti-Semitic, believing the god of the Jews to be spiteful, mean, and petty in comparison to the gentle teachings of Jesus.
Ideas, beliefs, and values change over time and the church is no different. In ‘Misquoting Jesus’ Ehrman outlined a strong argument that the New Testament is to some degree a fiction: we really can’t say for sure what the autographical texts said and we have firm evidence of tinkering. The history of the church follows a parallel line. During the first century one could take their pick from various views of Jesus, the new Christian church, and its relation to other religions. As an orthodoxy emerged, competing ideas were rooted out. “Heretics’ were hunted down. False teacher run out of town. The idea that Jesus was ‘very God of very God’ became prominent and dissenters where shunned. This ‘orthodoxy’ would have surprised many early followers of Jesus.
For readers of Ehrman this will be familiar ground. His writing is accessible and he notes enough references to provide plenty of research. Like the response to his other books, not everyone will be amused. His argument is historical and fact based and doesn’t settle well with current orthodoxy. It’s a good read, though, for anyone interested in early Christianity and the development of the early church. There’s lots to think about here no matter what side of the coin you enjoy. A good book.
(less)
flag11 likes · Like · 1 comment · see review
Tanja Berg
Feb 15, 2021Tanja Berg rated it really liked it
Shelves: non-fiction, audio
This was a fascinating tale of how an apocalyptic preacher from the hamlet of Nazareth eventually became god. The author makes it clear from the beginning that he is a non-believer, but the book should be interesting enough from a theological perspective. I found it fascinating.
Things I've learned:
1) The divine as perceived 2000 years ago was something on a continuum. It was not "us down here and the god up there" like now. There were angels, and demons and deities on many different levels. Some gods took human forms for a brief period of time, and some human became gods. Such as some Roman emperors.
2) There was a dispute among the early Christians whether Christ really had a physical reincarnation or whether it was merely spiritual. The first notion won.
3) There probably wasn't any grave. The crucified were normally left to rot on the cross - this was part of the punishment - and the Romans were certainly not inclined to be lenient during Passover, a time of unrest among the Jews. Plus, Jesus followers had scattered and he didn't have any family with connections in Jerusalem that could request such an honor. It's unlikely a single grave could have been provided. This is a later addition, in order to support the physical reincarnation.
4) The early Christian and the early church struggled greatly with unifying several gods - the God of the New Testament and Jesus - so that Christianity would remain a monotheism. After long and hard discussion, the complicated result was the holy trinity, that has baffled theologians ever since.
5) Christ went from being seen as mainly human and the adopted sun of God - something which in that time and day was an honor of importance - to having been completely divine from conception to death.
There is much more to be had from this book, but these are the points that struck me the most and that I will be left with.
I found it absolutely fascinating how the author goes through accepted dogma and picks it apart, presenting more likely scenarios. He is very clear on what can and cannot be known, and on different likelihoods and probabilities, based on what we can know. Christianity has had such a huge influence that it is fascinating reading from a sheer historical perspective.
I loved this book so much that I immediately downloaded another one by the same author, "Heaven and Hell - a history of the afterlife".
(less)
flag10 likes · Like · see review
Bryan Alkire
Jul 02, 2021Bryan Alkire rated it liked it
Worth reading once. The author’s books are usually interesting and his analysis and arguments are usually sound enough. I always learn something new by reading them. But, two things bother me about his books. First, his writing style is not the most exciting to me. I usually have a hard time. I have a hard time staying focused on his writing. Secondly, all his books about the new testament itself and issues thereof are all starting to sound alike to me which makes it harder to focus as well. He basically says the same introductory things in every book. That’s probably a sign I’m reading too many of his books and why I rarely read all that many books by one author. In any event, this book is worth reading, just don’t expect anything different or brilliant beyond any of his other new testament books. (less)
flag10 likes · Like · 1 comment · see review
Gary Patton
Apr 01, 2014Gary Patton rated it it was ok
In his introduction, Mr. Ehrman explains that he is an ex-believer in Christianity and an historian. What a wonderful coincidence, I thought, because both statements describe me, as well.
Like Mr. Ehrman, I too have credentials as an historian although I have never practiced as one. I earned a Master's Degree in History from the University of Toronto in 1966.
Also like him, I have spent all the years since reading about and getting to know the historical Jesus from the Bible as well has secondary sources about Christianity and Jesus.
I did one crucial thing different than Mr. Ehrman which you need to know before reading further. I also came to know Jesus, intimately, as a Friend as well as my Master and Saviour (Romans 10:8-12), through the power of the Holy Spirit whom I know lives and operates within and out of me. (1 Corinthians 6:19)
As a result, several years ago, I turned my back on the traditional religion called, incorrectly, Christianity by the Catholic Church. (Jesus Followers called what they practised "The Way", the only three references to 'Christianity' in the entire New Covenant are each pejorative, and 'Christ' is a transliteration, not a translation, of the Greek word, 'kristos'.
The correct translation of kristos, and what people heard when it was used to describe Jesus when He walked the earth, is 'King'. This is documentable, but a seldom shared truth by Bible teachers or translators for traditional reasons, Mr. Ehrman doesn't share ...if he even knows it!)
Forsaking traditional religious Christendom, I became a radical, like my Saviour, plus like Him, irreligious.
Now, I simply follow Jesus, "God, The One & Only"!
In Chapter 1, the author shares about someone very intriguing to Ehrman and his thesis but about whom I'd never heard, nor ever researched. He was a man named Apollonius who allegedly lived in the second half of the first century after Jesus.
The parallels between Jesus' story, as recounted in the Gospels, and that of Apollonius, in the writings about him, are many. These include, allegedly, a miracle birth, performing miracles, gaining followers, and becoming divine.
Mr. Ehrman explains that 'divinity' of a human was something believed in by most first century pagans, Followers of Jesus, and even Jews ...despite the monotheism of both the latter two groups.
The author goes on to review that, from his point of view, Jesus never calls himself God except in the Book of John. He alleges in line with some Bible scholars that this book was written about 50 years after Jesus' death and Jesus does not call himself God in any of the earlier-written Gospels.
Mr. Ehrman challenges the Divinity of Jesus most strongly by deconstructing the resurrection of our Master and discounting its credibility because of the lack of historical evidence for it.
As the author may never have believed, faith for a true Jesus Follower if not cultural-only christians, trumps the lack of historical evidence. The New Covenant states this fact from beginning to end. "... without faith, no one can please God." (Hebrews 11:1 & 6)
Blessings all!
GaryFPatton
(2014.04.28 © gfp '42™) (less)
flag9 likes · Like · 14 comments · see review
Michael
Aug 10, 2015Michael rated it really liked it
When I was young, around twelve or so, and attending church regularly, I was already quite taken with the field of history and was a voracious reader. I was also becoming less engaged with the dogmatic aspects of Lutheranism in particular, as well as dogma in general. What did keep me "in the fold" was the music, the art, the pageantry, my love for the little girl down the street, and my burgeoning interest in the origins of Christianity.
I was fortunate to discover, in a room off the annex entrance to the sanctuary, in a broken down bookcase, a multi-volume, scholarly commentary on both Hebrew scripture and the Christian Bible. I began borrowing those books, starting with Volume I: The Pentateuch (the Torah of Judaism), and reading them surreptitiously during Sunday services. I must admit it was heavy lifting for my twelve year old brain. This probably accounts for why I remember few details from those commentaries. What I do remember however, starkly, was my shock at finding out that the scholarly analysis of these ancient texts didn't quite square with the assumptions held by most believers and self-identified Christians. The specific statement which led to my little epiphany was that Moses wasn't the actual author of the books which were ascribed to him. A small thing, I know, but it was this small wedge which cracked the egg for me. I saw in a flash that Christianity existed and evolved in an historical context, yet it was never presented in that context to its congregants. It existed in a perfect cultural and historical vacuum. For me, that commentary let a little air into the closed room of my belief, thereby destroying the vacuum and ultimately showing me the exit from organized religion.
It's been many years since I left that room, and somewhere, in the last dozen years, I was fortunate in finding the books written by Bart Ehrman. I just finished another one, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee and, as usual, Mr. Ehrman stuns. The question of how a Jewish, Apocalyptic, itinerate preacher, from the back woods of Palestine, became identified as the Lord of the universe, is pretty fascinating. It is a real pleasure to follow the author as he analyzes the textual material and places it in its Jewish, Hellenistic, and Roman context. The particular focus of this volume is the questions of exactly when did Jesus' followers first understand him to be god and what, precisely, they meant by god as applied to Jesus.
The scholarly gravitas which Ehrman radiates in all of his books is on full display here, but this is not really the best way to introduce yourself to this author's voice and mind. I would highly recommend two of his earlier works, Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted as an introduction.
Be warned though, these books will challenge basic assumptions, and ask you to re-evaluate cherished beliefs you probably hold. (less)
flag8 likes · Like · comment · see review
----
... January 29-31, 2016, Bart D. Ehrman gave three separate lectures to attendees, a series that highlighted his ...
31 Mar 2016 · Uploaded by Bart D. Ehrman
... Schieber of the now defunct Reasonable Doubts Podcast, interviews Dr. Bart Ehrman on his book "How ...
30 Sept 2017 · Uploaded by Bart D. Ehrman
... January 29-31, 2016, Bart D. Ehrman gave three separate lectures to attendees, a series that highlighted his ...
31 Mar 2016 · Uploaded by Bart D. Ehrman
... January 29-31, 2016, Bart D. Ehrman gave three separate lectures to attendees, a series that highlighted his ...
31 Mar 2016 · Uploaded by Bart D. Ehrman
---
