5.0 out of 5 stars Thumbs up from a conservative Catholic

M. · April 25, 2014

(function() { P.when('cr-A', 'ready').execute(function(A) { if(typeof A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel === 'function') { A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel('review_text_read_more', 'Read more of this review', 'Read less of this review'); } }); })(); .review-text-read-more-expander:focus-visible { outline: 2px solid #2162a1; outline-offset: 2px; border-radius: 5px; } I have read several of Bart's books, and though I can take issue with him here and there (as other reviewers have on certain points) I find them uniformly clear, informative, and well written.I would quibble with Bart about all the Gospels being written in Greek. Certainly the versions we have were written in Greek. But there is reason to think that Matthew, at least, was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. Some scholar, whose name I have forgotten, translated Matthew into Aramaic, and then back into Greek. In the process he realized that a lot of the phrasing, vocabulary, etc. was influenced by the Aramaic "original." The sources Bart lists (Q, L, M, etc.) may well have been in Aramaic--there's no evidence either way. St. Paul--clearly a Greek speaker--was very careful about the use of Greek words that translated Aramaic terms, showing he was aware of the underlying Aramaic. And although Bart keeps talking about the Apostles as illiterate peasants, I'm not sure they couldn't read or write. Matthew was a tax collector; doesn't that imply a degree of literacy? Jews of the time in general were expected to be familiar with scripture; doesn't that imply some degree of literacy? But of course we don't know one way or the other for sure.As a conservative (I am a Cardinal Ratzinger groupie) Catholic, I see nothing in his arguments to contradict my own faith. Note that Bart cites Fr. Raymond Brown in this book as well as many others of his books. Fr. Brown's writings all had the "nihil obstat" and "imprimatur": official Church approval. And Bart and Fr. Brown see eye to eye on many issues. This may be shocking to more evangelical Protestants, so let me give some examples and reasons.But first let me say that I am not a Biblical scholar, do not know Greek or Aramaic, and am not intimately familiar with all the nuances of various arguments. On the other hand, I have been a practicing Catholic for 66 years, took two years of theology at Georgetown (as we all did in the 60s), and have read a fair amount of theology since. But if some priest or bishop wants to set me straight on something, it's fine with me.First, I agree with Bart entirely that you cannot divorce either Jesus, the Apostles, or the writers of the New Testament from their own time and place ("sitz in leben" or "setting in life" as we learned in theology class). They all talk and write as people of their own time, and thus some of their concerns (Does the actual body rise from the dead? Should we pay taxes to Caesar?) are concerns of their particular period of history. The surprise is, in fact, that almost all of the New Testament is so universal, and not bound up in its own period. In other words, it does not seem "dated," as even a US history book 50 years old would. The fact that there are different styles of writing shows that each writer contributes to his work--these are NOT dictations from God (see encyclical of Pius XII). To what extent certain passages are the writer's own is an open question. Scripture is "written by God," but (as Bart would appreciate!) what this means is not precisely clear. It is an evolving definition within the Church.All canonical scripture is considered inspired. So if, as Bart says, certain passages were added later, or Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn't really write the Gospels, and St. Paul really didn't write all the letters attributed to him, the Catholic response is "So what?". If, for example, the passage about the woman taken in adultery is an addition, it is still considered inspired because it was accepted as part of the canon by the early church. If you literally believe that every word has to be absolutely true in every sense, and if your faith is based (as Bart's was) on the complete inerrancy of these texts, your faith obviously takes a beating when various contradictions, additions, etc. are pointed out. However, Catholics see scripture as only one source of faith. Another is the consensus of the believing community. If the great majority of believers believed x in the year 75, then we believe x too. It's the idea that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church as a whole: "I will be with you always..."Likewise, the "exact" words of Jesus that the Jesus Seminar searches for so earnestly, and that even Bart yearns to discover (can't seem to shake that evangelical past), don't really matter. As Bart points out, John quotes various "speeches" that are all--in style--clearly written by John. Of course! Does anyone seriously think a shorthand stenographer was trailing Jesus around taking dictation? What is the story of the Prodigal Son (for example) about? Does it matter how many years the prodigal son spent away from his family? Does it matter how many cattle his father killed for the feast? Does it matter what the father said to him when he saw him for the first time? No. There is a simple point to the story: You can sin, be sorry, and be forgiven. That's it. The rest is embellishment and irrelevant. If some of the parables are told in slightly different versions, so what? The point they make is the same.Having said that all scripture is inspired, there is evolution in the understanding of scripture. This, of course, is what Bart's book is about--how the understanding of Jesus developed. As a Catholic, I have no problem with the historical development of beliefs. This is precisely why theologians still write books! But there's one catch: once something is declared a dogma, you can't go back and change it. So, for example, Catholics believe that Jesus is God (with all the qualifications Bart pointed out). So a theologian can't come along and say Jesus isn't God. That would be heretical. But--this might surprise some of our Protestant friends--the Church is very careful and deliberate about declaring something an article of faith. For example, the belief in the Immaculate Conception (that Mary was born without original sin), was a commonly held belief throughout history, but it was only declared a dogma in the 19th century. To give a more modern example, if, as a Catholic, you want to believe in the miracles of Fatima and Lourdes, good for you. But this belief is not an article of faith--I personally am very skeptical of all these visions to shepherd children. But that doesn't make me a bad Catholic. It's my choice to believe or not.Let's use a secular analogy to explain evolution of understanding: the US Constitution. Obviously those who wrote it in the 18th c. had specific ideas in mind, but, as with the writers of scripture, they were people of their own time. Their language is slightly different. What is a "militia" for example? Do "free men" include African Americans? And, while their concept of freedom of speech may have encompassed books and newspapers, they didn't know anything about the Internet and e-mail. That's why we have a Supreme Court: to decide what the Constitution means in the context of the present. It evolves over time (Dred Scott, the legality of wire tapping, etc.), and--just as in religion--words or concepts are given more and more precise meanings as people think about them. As Bart quite rightly kept saying, "In what way was Jesus God?" As you start thinking about it in more detail, you run into issues that weren't clear at first.Finally, Bart makes a big deal of the various "contradictions" in the story of the resurrection: who arrived at the tomb first, who did they see (1 angel? 2? A boy?, etc.), and where did Jesus say he would appear to them: Jerusalem or Galilee? Again, "So what?". Bart should (and probably does) know better. Why were the Gospels written? To give a precise, historically accurate account of what happened? No. The authors couldn't care less. They were written to tell people about the message of salvation Jesus preached. And, of course (!) the authors were concerned to tie Jesus to Old Testament writings every chance they could, to show that Jesus was not coming out of nowhere, but was foretold by, and a fulfillment of, previous scripture. What is the essence of the Gospel teaching in the various stories of the resurrection? That Jesus rose from the dead; that his body (you can quibble about what type of "body" it was) was resurrected; and that by His resurrection He set Himself apart from previous prophets. Who saw him first, where he first appeared, whether there was one angel or two at the tomb--these are nice details and make a nice story, but they're irrelevant to the main message. In a similar way, fundamentalists get hung up on Genesis and the story of creation. It's a cute story that makes for nice children's picture books, but what, exactly is the essence of the story? Only two things: 1) God created everything. 2) Creation is good. That's it. All the other stuff really doesn't matter.

5.0 out of 5 stars Expose on this fantastic book from a detailed counter rebuttal.

B. · September 25, 2014

In responding to a three star review titled "Notable for what Ehrman gets right as well as what he gets wrong”, I decided to post this as my own personal review. In my response, I noticed that there was enough information included to be a decent review of the book. Here it is:Overall a decent attempt, but I’ve noticed too many flaws in your critique of Ehrman1. You rightly point out that Jews of the time may not have agreed with Greco-Roman ideas of supernatural continuums, but your point in claiming that Ehrman glossed over Paul’s response to the Phyrigians doesn’t really go anywhere. Of course Paul would proselytise and tell them that they were idolatrous. Why is this as profound as you claim? Ehrman was not Implying that Paul approved of their beliefs. You claim that these discrepancies of the divine continuum is the "Achilles Heel of Ehrman’s whole account of Christian origins”, and you back this up with the fact that the Jewish conception of Jesus divinity was unprecedented. On the contrary, Ehrman explains quite clearly that it falls neatly into a Jewish continuum of divinity, even if it is unique. I’m not seeing any compelling rebuttal here.Also, Ehrman does not generalise about "divine humans” as you claim, he does the exact opposite, and nor is it irrelevant as you also claim. He provides clear definitions for all types and adequately places these concepts of the divine into the appropriate Jewish context of 1st century Palestine. The result is a convincingly secular explanation for how how someone such as Jesus could be hailed as divine years after his death, even if it was sooner than skeptics are aware of. If it was irrelevant, you wouldn’t make the point that Jews in antiquity hailed their human leader with a unique divinity, “unprecedented" as it may be. It’s a double standard to present Ehrman’s points as irrelevant and then use the exact same criteria to stress your own point.2. Ehrman’s book actually deals with this phenomenon. Some of Ehrman's points: There was a supernatural continuum; we don’t know historically how many followers had these visions nor do we know if they all agreed; they were visions and later accounts and therefore not direct eyewitness testimony; that many followers continued to doubt despite being in the presence of Jesus for forty days providing “many proofs”. All of these are great reasons to doubt, and Ehrman explains quite clearly why we cannot accept certain resurrection details on historical grounds. You merely assert that it lacks in credulity without offering any direct and detailed rebuttals. For a self-professed scholar, I expect more intellectual robustness.3. I cannot consider this an adequate response to Ehrman’s stance of the burial of Jesus. You don’t actually address his specific arguments, nor do you provide any detailed rebuttals. Appealing to another book, without even bringing up it's own points, really amounts to nothing. Ehrman remains unchallenged here. I found his arguments very convincing and reasonable (Such as animal scavenging in drawn-out Roman crucifixions) compared to the usual apologetic arguments for the historical burial of Jesus. It’s simply not true as you claim. As Ehrman notes, the gospel writers would’ve had obvious motives for claiming the burial of Jesus. Without it, how could the writers provide a narrative on the empty tomb? On historical grounds the burial of Jesus remains implausible.4. Ehrman does not “quietly omit” Paul’s vision of Jesus in chapter 4. On page 137, he very loudly cites 1 Cor. 15:3-8. It’s not intellectually honest of you to make this claim. Your point also must rest on the assumption that we can somehow historically corroborate Paul’s vision. We can’t. It was a miraculous event. By definition, it was an event that defies probability. Ehrman makes a good point here. Why is the most probable explanation for believers the one that defies all probability (a miracle)? The title of chapter 4 was “The Ressurrection of Jesus: What we cannot know”. Even If Ehrman did leave Paul’s vision out of the chapter, how would that help your ulterior point that Paul’s vision must somehow provide compelling evidence for the resurrection?5. I’ll grant you your claim: that Paul did not consider Jesus as a pre-existing angel or demigod, but knew full well that Jesus was god incarnate and was aware of the holy trinity. I am scratching my head with your claim that Galatians: 4:4-6 is Paul referencing a “proto-trinitarian” view of Christ. Even if I grant you that it is a proto-trinitarian view of Jesus, we can only make that judgment in hindsight. If the Trinity had never survived the Nicean sieve, would you still understand this as an early trinitarian view of Paul’s ? Of course not. It’s more likely an accident of history. It also seems to beg a lot of questions. If Paul really was divinely inspired and knew about the trinity, which later became a necessary orthodoxy for Christian theology, why isn’t he more lucid or explanatory on it? If it is such an important doctrine, and Paul had divine inspiration fuelling him, why doesn’t he write about it more?The truth is, your claim of a proto-trinitarian view of Jesus is perfectly consistent with a secular understanding of the development of early Christologies. It took years for the doctrine of the Trinity to take hold as evidenced by its exclusion in the synoptic gospels, and its much later inclusion in the gospel of John, with only vague and incomplete Pauline proto-understandings earlier in history. It seems to me that your point on proto-trinitarianism is yet more evidence that Christianity evolved over time by human methods and ever-changing socio-political agendas (such as the much later need to deify Jesus under Monotheism to incriminate the Jews), and is certainly not the result of true infallible enlightenment by a deity.Good evidence that would convince an honest skeptic of such an outrageous claim has never been presented. Evidence? Yes. Good evidence? Of course not. Reasonable conclusions that directly follow? I’ve never heard one. Otherwise, I would probably be a believer, which brings me to another question. If Jesus really was the one and true god of the bible, why doesn’t he meet the demand of skeptics with much better evidence? There have been numerous apologetic responses to this question of the problem of evil, and none of them directly solve the problem. If god is powerful enough, why doesn’t he reveal to me the truth of the resurrection, and save me from eternal damnation? If I am inherently flawed and evil, it is up to him to provide his “irresistible grace”. Why am I stuck with subpar Christian apologetics and flawed, biased scholarship (such as yours)?Lastly, I have to address the elephant in the room. On numerous occasions you keep mentioning that the Christian doctrine of“...a divine person [having to] become a mortal human being...”as, on top of being supported by Ehrman himself, literally unprecedented. My question is this: And?Can you please explain, on reasonable grounds, why this is accounts as sufficient and overwhelming evidence for the divinity of Jesus?It seems to me you can really go two ways with this. Its either, ultimately, an inference that you take on faith, and is thus presuppositional, or you really are claiming that this constitutes as evidence for Jesus’s divinity. My question really only applies for the second case. For the sake of argument and brevity, I will grant you that it truly is a piece of evidence that is consistent with the divinity of Jesus. With this piece of evidence, what is your chain of reasoning in concluding that Jesus is therefore divine? In other words, how does it logically follow that Jesus is necessarily divine because the earliest Christians subscribed to a belief that “was totally unprecedented in the ancient world"?

Fantastic book!

A. · June 25, 2014

(function() { P.when('cr-A', 'ready').execute(function(A) { if(typeof A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel === 'function') { A.toggleExpanderAriaLabel('review_text_read_more', 'Read more of this review', 'Read less of this review'); } }); })(); .review-text-read-more-expander:focus-visible { outline: 2px solid #2162a1; outline-offset: 2px; border-radius: 5px; } This book is about the historic Jesus. Tries to answer when Jesus was first seen as God. Earlier than his birth, in his lifetime or did it happen afterward? Author of many books about Christianity, Mr. Ehrman covers with authority broad aspects on the subject. Very well researched, written without a bias (the author defines himself as a non-believer), this book elucidates many of the old traditions, creeds and beliefs from the old Greece to the early centuries of Christianity. It is a must read!

Une initiation intelligente au christianisme primitif

B.M. · June 3, 2015

Un ouvrage de lecture aisée sur des sujets complexe. Une thèse ferme mais une attitude intellectuelle ouverte de l'auteur. Un excellent ouvrage d'initiation au christianisme primitif et à l'histoire du N ou eau Testament.

Interesting and authorative

T. · December 31, 2024

This is not a faith-based book, but an analysis. It is thought provoking account of how the perception of Jesus changed amongst early Christians, whether you agree with it or not. Some of the arguments were new to me and well argued.

How Jesus Became God

C.A. · September 22, 2016

Compré el libro porque me interesa mucho el tema y contenido. Parece que el autor domina el tema y habla con propiedad.

Fantastic - I hope an academic monograph follows!

J. · May 20, 2014

This ranks highly among Bart Ehrman's many 'trade' books written for a general audience. The scope of his investigation into the nature and history of divinity in the ancient world, its relationship to Second Temple Jewish ideas about divinity and the afterlife and how the early Christians developed their ideas is quite impressive. His relatable style and acquaintance with the audience makes the text all the more readable; if you're not seeking to explore the issue in the dull formalities of academic formatting and impersonal scholarship, I highly recommend this as a popular text that will respect your intelligence as well as your beliefs. Ehrman leaves open the question of whether Jesus 'was' God and I am sure many open-minded Christians could read this and be happy to expand their understanding of Christian origins without endangering their faith. However, a certain amount of cognitive dissonance may be required; without attempting to harm anybody's deeply-held beliefs, I should state that Ehrman makes some fairly convincing arguments that among other things. Jesus probably did not claim to be God (certainly not saying "I am the way the truth and the life"), he probably did not predict his death until it was absolutely imminent, and almost certainly told his followers that the world was going to end very soon. There was also probably not an Empty Tomb and Jesus may have been given a deeply ignominious burial after being left on the cross to be pecked at by birds. If not, an 'honorable' burial would have far more likely involved being buried in the ground and not a "rich man's tomb".If we're generous, Jesus was an inspirational and charismatic teacher who inspired hope and taught a spirit of forgiveness among his followers - he just had the misfortune of being born in a terrifying environment of apocalypticism and doomsday proclamations among scores of competing Jewish sects, taking on some variant of this theology as his own. If we're being less generous, he was essentially a cult leader, who promised "the Twelve" (yes, Judas as well) that they would serve with him as judges of the Twelve Tribes of Israel in a divinely-ordained Kingdom that would be set up in the imminent future. The failure of this kingdom prompted some fervent rethinking and rationalisations among his despondent early followers - I recommend reading Kris Komranitsky's 'Doubting Jesus' Resurrection' alongside this for greater exposition. Ehrman demonstrates convincingly that all that was required for belief in the Resurrection to occur was between one and several of the disciples to have visions of Jesus or 'experience' him in some other way. From then on, the rumour mill gets kicked into gear and the Second Coming is proclaimed to be just around the corner. The conversion of Paul probably resulted from a combination of Paul's guilt at persecuting a sect that he was becoming more familiar with (it's often overlooked that Paul had relatives who were members of the Jesus sect *whilst* he was persecuting it) and one impressive conversion experience, whether epileptic or otherwise. The rest, as they say, is history - a rather confusing history dependent on documents from the early Christian church which, as Ehrman has elaborately demonstrated elsewhere, are infested with forged letters, misattributions and outright fabrications.Even if one does not believe Jesus was God, Ehrman presents a compelling story of the birth of a new religion and how the devoted, loving followers of a father-like figure put his message into action. At times, one gets a disturbing realisation of the similarities between Jesus and other 'Latter Day Saints' (Joseph Smith is too easy to compare - it's cruel but necessary to mention David Koresh - if you're really mean you many even drop in Charles Manson). At other times, one can really begin to appreciate the good parts of his message as coming from a human moral teacher, what Thomas Jefferson took from Jesus when he compiled his own version of the New Testament excised of miracles and supernatural events. At any rate, this book would be an ideal read for non-believers or just non-Christians, particularly Jews, who want to understand Jesus' essential Jewish roots in the context of the Hellenizing influences that came to shape Christianity. I highly recommend it, as with everything that the great scholar at UNC Chapel Hill produces.