After a temporary diversion into addressing Richard Carrier and the “mythicist movement,” I am now getting back to my extended book analysis of Bart Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God. In this post, I will begin to look at chapter 3 in HJBG, where Ehrman discusses whether or not Jesus believed he was God.
Well then, did Jesus think he was God?
The answer is not a simple yes or no. And, unfortunately, I feel Ehrman doesn’t do anyone any favors by not taking the time to tease out just how complex such a question is. Now, if I could summarize Ehrman’s entire chapter, I would put it this way: Ehrman says, “No, Jesus didn’t think he was God. He was an apocalyptic prophet who thought the world was going to end in his lifetime, that a heavenly Son of Man would come, judge the living and the dead, and then set up God’s kingdom. And no, Jesus didn’t think he was the Son of Man either—Jesus thought he would be enthroned as the messianic king of God’s kingdom, after the Son of Man had done his thing. …but the end of the world didn’t happen, so Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet.”
That’s the chapter in a nutshell. To get to that conclusion, Ehrman makes a number of arguments and claims that I think are rather problematic.
Sources and Stories
Perhaps one of the fundamental problems I have with Ehrman’s take on Jesus is the way he (in my opinion) mischaracterizes the Gospels. Simply put, he doesn’t believe they should be “taken at face value as giving us historically reliable accounts of the things Jesus said and did” (88). Now, to a point, he’s correct when he says that reading the Gospels as if they were giving a “blow by blow” journalistic account of Jesus’ life “…is the approach to the Bible that fundamentalists take” (88). Indeed, Ehrman should know—he was a fundamentalist for a time.
But where he goes wrong is that now that he realizes the Gospels aren’t giving a “blow by blow” account, but rather are highly stylized works, Ehrman concludes that the Gospels can’t be a reliable source of historical information at all. Simply put, his former blind acceptance of the Gospels as “just the facts, ma’am” reporting, is now replaced with a hyper-skepticism of the Gospels that essentially says, “If fundamentalism’s take on the Gospels is wrong, then I won’t believe anything they say!”
And that is why I’m convinced that Ehrman’s approach to the Bible is still shaped by that fundamentalist mindset he formerly had. In any case, the reasons Ehrman gives for claiming the Gospels aren’t historically reliable are these:
- They were written 40-50 years after Jesus’ death (Paul wrote 20-30 years after Jesus’ death). Ehrman writes, “What is significant here is the time gap involved. The very first surviving account of Jesus’ life was written thirty-five to forty years after his death. Our latest canonical Gospel was written nearly sixty to sixty-five years after his death. That’s obviously a lot of time” (91).
- They weren’t written by eyewitnesses, but rather were written anonymously by people who were clearly Greek-speakers
- Jesus’s followers told stories, and then new converts told stories, over those 40 years things got embellished and changed
- “These books [the Gospels] do not contain the words of someone who was sitting at Jesus’ feet taking notes. They are nothing like that” (92).
- The Gospels writers had a vested interest in what they were writing: “They wanted to preach Jesus. They were not trying to give biographical information that would pass muster among critical historians living two thousand years later who have developed significantly different standards of writing history” (93).
Now, for a quick response to these claims.
Late Dates?
First, despite what Ehrman claims, the fact is that in the ancient world, a document that purports to be biographical in some way that date to within 40 years of the events it covers is extremely rare and extremely early, and thus would be seen as extremely reliable sources for history. Even if one says, “Hey, the Gospel of Mark talks about miracles and resurrection—I don’t believe those things happened,” one (if one were honest) would admit that such skepticism was based on a philosophical presupposition that there are no such thing as miracles, and not on the notion that the Gospel of Mark was written long after the events in question, and therefore can’t be reliable—in the ancient world, a document within 40 years of the event is extremely early, not extremely late.
Anonymous and Educated Greek-Speakers?
Second, I think Ehrman makes much too big a deal about this. When scholars say the Gospels are “anonymous,” they simply mean that the authors did not actually write in the book, “Hey, I’m the author!” Church tradition as far back as the second century clearly associate the four Gospels with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Is this iron-clad proof? Of course not. Nevertheless, that doesn’t change the fact that the Gospels were all written very early.
On top of that, the claim that “poor, illiterate Galilean fisherman” couldn’t have written these literary accounts in Greek also falls flat. It certainly is historically probable that Mark, a Hellenistic Jew who worked with Peter, got much of his information from Peter—after all, the Gospel of Mark is dated to right around the time Peter was killed. The same goes for Luke, the Greek physician who worked with Paul. It’s entirely possible that Luke did his research during the years in the early 60s when Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea. There is no historical reason to see this as impossible or improbable.
As for Matthew, he was a tax-collector and would probably have been competent in Greek. What this means, quite obviously, is that, contrary to the charge that “illiterate Galilean fisherman” couldn’t have written the Gospels, a moment’s reflection shows that neither Matthew, Mark, nor Luke were Galilean fisherman! They all would have been competent in koine Greek. As for John, him being John the disciple (and former fisherman) doesn’t really disqualify him either, for the level of Greek in John is really basic, grade school level Greek.
And then, of course, there is the other reality that there were scribes in the ancient world who could write down account that people dictated to them. So even if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all illiterate fisherman (and we know that is false), that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have been the source of their respective Gospels, with a Christian scribe writing it down.
In short, Ehrman’s claims on this point simply are really flimsy, and they certainly don’t justify his assertion that because of these things the Gospels can’t be considered reliable sources.
Story Telling
Third, what about Ehrman’s claims that for 40 years Christians simply made up their own stories about Jesus, embellishing and changing things to suit their own fancies? As Ehrman writes, “These stories were being told by word of mouth, year after year, decade after decade, among lots of people in different parts of the world, in different languages, and there was no way to control what one person said to the next about Jesus’s words and deeds. Everyone knows what happens to stories that circulate this way. Details get changed, episodes get invented, events get exaggerated, impressive accounts get made even more impressive, and so on” (92).
Let me ask a simple question: How does Ehrman know this? Let’s be clear—he doesn’t. This is an invented assertion with no evidence to back it up. In addition, “in different parts of the word, in different languages”? Let’s try, “in the Roman Empire, where the predominant, universal language was Greek.” And what about the claim that “there was no way to control” what Christians said about Jesus? First, by AD 65-70, the Christian movement still was really small, and (as we know from Paul’s letters), the churches throughout the Roman Empire kept in contact with one another. And second, we know from Paul’s own letters (I Cor. 11:2 and II Thess. 2:15) that there was a concentrated commitment to maintain the original teachings of the apostles.
What? The Gospels aren’t Dictation from the Feet of Jesus?
Now, that certainly does not mean that the Gospel writers creatively shaped their Gospels and used literary creativity and techniques in the presentation of their Gospels, but I find Ehrman’s own claims about “telling stories” to be the real example of embellishment and exaggeration. And so, when Ehrman then states that part of the reason we can’t regard the Gospels as historically reliable is because, as he writes, “These books do not contain the words of someone who was sitting at Jesus’ feet taking notes. They are nothing like that” (92), I just am left scratching my head.
Who has ever made the claim that the Gospels were the result of the disciples acting as first century court reporters? That’s ridiculous. Nobody (outside of perhaps the most extreme ultra-fundamentalists) thinks that. Therefore, when Ehrman cites that as an objection to the historical reliability of the Gospels, I’m just dumbfounded. It reveals more his rejection of ultra-fundamentalism than anything else. Unfortunately, he seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The Gospel Writers Had an Agenda?
Ehrman’s final reason to distrust the historical reliability of the Gospels is also nonsensical to anyone who just steps back and thinks about it for a second. Ehrman claims that since the Gospel writers were trying to “preach Jesus,” that they weren’t trying to give biographical information that would convince 21st century historical-critical scholars.
Really now? If the Gospel writers were trying to “preach Jesus,” that tells me they were trying to tell people, you know, about the historical Jesus of Nazareth. To look at works like Matthew, Mark, and Luke—works that scholars agree are ancient historical biographies—and to then say, “Oh, they weren’t interesting in giving biographical information because they had a “vested interest” and just wanted to “preach Jesus,” why that just literally doesn’t make sense.
On top of that, to say the Gospels aren’t reliable because the Gospel writers didn’t write their history with the same methods as 21st century historical-critical scholars is just bizarre.
Conclusion
All that being said, Ehrman acknowledges that there probably is in the Gospels some “historically accurate recollections” of what Jesus said. The trick, though, is to try to figure out which parts of the Gospels can be deemed historically reliable. And so, in my next post, I will discuss Ehrman’s method to determine which parts of the Gospels are probably historically accurate and which are not. In addition, I will address Ehrman’s claim that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet.
Nice summary Dr. Anderson. I share your fundamental (no pun intended) objections to Ehrman’s arguments stated above. You’re right. He displays (as other liberal NT scholars also do) an anti-fundamentalist fundamentalism that mains that if *parts* of the gospels aren’t literal then *nothing* in them are literal.
In the first place Ehrman’s Jesus sounds suspiciously like Albert Schweitzer’s Jesus, who was also a failed apocalyptic prophet. Its amazing how Schweitzer’s original 100 year-old template seems to keep resurfacing every few years.
Secondly, Ehrman in his popular books makes claims he would probably never make in his academic work. Such as that the gospels were written too late to be reliable. This claim astounds me, too. I just can’t fathom how the late Bruce Metzger’s former grad-student could go on to make such claims. As you said, 40 years in the ancient world is *very* early to have a biography of someone.
Our earliest copies of many ancient Greek and Roman texts date to several centuries after they were originally written and survive in only a handful of copies. For example, our oldest manuscript copy of Plato, who originally wrote it between 427-347 BC, dates to 900 AD—1200 years later and there are only seven of it. I’ve never heard any academic historians argue that because the earliest surviving copies of Plato date to 900 AD therefore they cannot possibly be accurate. It’s only with the gospels that such absurd arguments are made. Nobody seems to entertain the thought that *because* they believed the gospels were the inspired words of God they took extra care to record them as accurately as possible, so that what we have is a NT text that is 95% accurate..
And that NT text includes over five thousand ancient manuscript copies of the New Testament, a few gospel fragments which date to about 120 AD, a mere twenty years after the last gospel, John’s, was written.
Also, what Ehrman says about oral tradition in the ancient world contradicts what I’ve read elsewhere. I have always understood that oral tradition was a *community endeavor* that helped ensure that tradents didn’t drop/add anything significant–they were free to arrange the material topically or thematically to suit the occasion but were *not* free to just invent stuff whole-cloth. Yet Ehrman’s arguments make it sound as if the early church was too stupid or too lazy to care whether they had an accurate record of Jesus’ words and deeds.
Pax.
Lee.
Hi there! I JUST noticed this comment, three days later! And yes, it really astounds me at how big a following Ehrman has, given that so much of what he claims in his popular books is, frankly, just quite bad.
Ehrman insists in a couple of his popular books that in his college classes he simply sets forth the views of the majority of mainstream NT scholars (which are reflected in his popular books) and doesn’t have time to examine the work of dissenters, therefore his students only get one side of the argument but that one side represents the consensus view. But I’ve also noticed that in his popular books Ehrman doesn’t really acknowledge or engage with dissenting views. For example, not at least having a chapter or part of one chapter, where he critiques the views of Profs. Bauckham, Hengel and Hurtado who have raised the bar in academia with their recent books which argue for a very early, very high, Christology in the early Church. Yet Ehrman only gives a bit of a nod to Bauckham in one book and doesn’t really engage with the arguments so much as try to explain them away.
I guess I’m just continually underwhelmed by his popular work, and this after skeptics and atheists assured me his work would blow my mind.
Pax.
Lee.
I think claiming that Matthew the tax collector composed the Gospel of Matthew is a bit of a stretch – how would a mere tax collector know how to use highly sophisticated and complex literary techniques? Maybe Matthew wrote down notes or ‘sayings’ (which might be what Papias was going on about). But the Gospel of Matthew is surely far too advanced.
For what he would be required to do and the people he’d interact with, it would be absurd to assume that a tax collector in a Hellenized levant wouldn’t be able to use the language displayed in Matthew. As both todays literature and much of what supposedly counts as intellectually heavy “secular” material back then demonstrates, it doesnt take much for anyone with sufficient education to even atempt to write with decent measure of sophistication, formality, or “advancement”.
If mere imbeciles like Claudius can be leaders of state, mere meatheads like Pliny can be called historians, and mere idiots like Celsus can be called thinkers, then no manner of language or poetry is beyond the capabilities of tax collectors.
Numbers people can’t be all bad at words, and unlikely isnt impossible. Especially when nutcases like the Zealots were gaining traction and the guy after Claudius can be even less of a competent leader.
Although I think stylistically Matthew (as well as Mark) is really creative and intricate, the actual Greek really isn’t that advanced. I think it is completely possible that a person working as a tax-collector would have a strong enough grasp of the Greek language to write at the level of Greek used in Matthew.