Reflections on Debating Bart Ehrman about Jesus
Several years ago Bart Ehrman wrote a book called How Jesus Became God about the origins of the doctrine of the incarnation (HarperOne, 2014). When I heard the book was coming out, I instantly groaned, because I knew I was about to receive many, many emails from Christians all over the world who had encountered either New Atheists or Muslim Apologists who were now quoting Ehrman’s new book at them. Seriously, if you were a Muslim or Jehovah’s Witness, it was like all your Christmases had come at once! Ehrman was like the low christology Santa Clause!
So I thought to myself, why not write a response to the book as it comes out with a line-up of world-class scholars. Well, I pitched the idea to Zondervan, who discussed it with their sister company HarperOne - Zondervan and HarperOne are both owned by Harper Collins - and with Ehrman’s blessing they allowed me and some colleagues to see a pre-pub copy of the book. So, I assembled my christological avengers with Craig A. Evans, Simon Gathercole, Charles Hill, and Chris Tilling, and in 100 days we planned, wrote, and published a response to Ehrman’s book that came out simultaneously with Ehrman’s book. To Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God we wrote our own volume How God Became Jesus.
In the lead-up, I wrote an article for Christianity Today on How God Became Jesus—and How I Came to Faith in Him, where I contrasted the journeys that Ehrman and I had in terms of skepticism, faith, Jesus, and academia.
There was a funny article about the two books in Publishers Weekly where the headline stated that Harper Collins was having a bet both ways on the divinity of Jesus. There was also a hilarious review of our book by an Ehrman acolyte who accidentally ordered our book instead of Ehrman’s and was none too impressed.
After the publication of both volumes, I had the pleasure of debating Ehrman in New Orleans where we disputed some of the core issues. It was great fun and I had a wonderful time! Ehrman is very cordial in person even if feisty at the podium. Though I think my mixture of comedy and rapid-fire facts was not quite what he was used to.
Since then I’ve done more in the christology area. I wrote a book on the origins of adoptionist christology where I argued that, contra Ehrman, adoptionist christology was not the earliest christology only adoptionism only really emerges at the end of the second century in a group called the Theodotians in Rome. I’m doing even more christology “stuff” these days as you may have noticed in my writing and on my you.tube channel.
The reason I’m writing this now is that recently Bart Ehrman re-posted his response to our book on his blog which brought back a flood of all these memories.
Here’s this post as a video:
In sum, Ehrman critiques us on the grounds that we did not produce an alternative narrative about how Jesus went from being a first-century Jewish prophet to being acclaimed as “God from God” in the fourth-century. He wrote:
I suspect there is a deeper reason as to why they provide no alternative vision. On one hand, they want to attack my views on historical grounds. But on the other hand, their own view – that Jesus actually was God in the flesh – is not based on historical evidence but on religious beliefs and theological assumptions. It cannot be established by historical methods of inquiry. And so they have resorted to something other than proposing a historical reconstruction. They have decided to deconstruct rather than construct. I think in the long run that’s a pity, because if they had provided a sustained statement about what they really think, readers would have a very easy time indeed recognizing which of the two books is a historical treatment of what happened in the rise of early Christianity and which is simply a restatement of traditional Christian dogma.
To which I would reply, that there already are alternative narratives about the origins of christology as told by Charles Moule, Raymond Brown, Howard Marshall, James Dunn, Maurice Casey, Richard Bauckham, and Larry Hurtado. So it’s not like an alternative narrative is not already out there! And yet, Ehrman pretty much ignored those alternatives, I mean, he does not ever mention Richard Bauckham! Our job was to point out the holes in some of Ehrman’s arguments as they pertain to:
Jesus’s view of himself.
The burial of Jesus.
The christology of pre-Pauline sources.
Contentious claims about Paul’s christology.
The making of orthodox christology.
That said, since engaging Ehrman and editing that book I would say that I have both softened and hardened in my criticism of Ehrman.
Where Ehrman is correct is that immediately after the resurrection the early church believed Jesus was divine. But the question is, “divine” in what sense? Here I have to say, after reading more and more primary sources, that I think Ehrman is correct here. Older scholars like Dunn and Casey argued that Jesus was initially regarded as a prophet, messianic son, the embodiment of divine wisdom, and only in the Gospel of John does Jesus truly, really become “God.” But that myth is busted. Jesus could be divine like an angel, an exalted patriarch, or a deified emperor. Those are types of divinity and are possible ways that Jesus was described as divine.
Where I have hardened in my differences with Ehrman is on things like the relevance of pagan heroes for christology, dating of angel christology, his reading of the Philippian Christ-hymn, and whether Mark’s christology is low or high.
Maybe, now that the pandemic is mostly over, I’d love to have another debate with Ehrman on something like, “How Did Jesus Become Divine?” or “Is the Trinity Biblical?” or “Was Jesus Worshipped?” or “Did St. Paul Think Jesus was an Angel?”
Sof, if any peeps out there are interested in making it happen, get your people to talk to Bart’s people and then talk to me.
Otherwise, check out these books and resources:
Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee.
Michael F. Bird et al, How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature.
Michael F. Bird, Jesus the Eternal Son: Answering Adoptionist Christology.
A video of the debate with Ehrman at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. The transcript of the debate and some additions is about to be published by Fortress Press and edited by Robert Stewart.
You might also appreciate my Nazareth to Nicaea vodcast and podcast.
Watch out for my forthcoming book Jesus among the gods: Early Christology in the Greco-Roman World with Baylor University Press.
Santa Claus, not Santa Clause.
The only problem I have with our “Evangelical” christology is that it is founded on only one side of the coin, that is Alexandrian patristic interpretation of the gospels and their own writings. What about the Antiochene christology? Sadly, we don’t have much of their writings because their were condemned as heresy and destroyed by the Alexandrians. Although few documents survived, they do not offer a complete view of their christology. Also, what if Antiochene christology is more accurate christology?