Bart Ehrman quote from an article- please help refute!

[Gorgias]

But with the Synoptic Gospels, you have to read between the lines, interpret names and actions in a particular way, and do what a lot of commenters here are doing–take current orthodoxy and apply it retroactively to the early 1st c. church.

I disagree. If Jesus merely claimed to be a (human) messiah, that would not be sufficient to warrant a claim of “blasphemy.” But, when he applies to himself an OT reference to God, the chief priest himself responds that this is blasphemy! In other words, the chief priest himself recognizes Jesus’ claim to divinity! You can assert that it’s not a direct claim to divinity, but you really can’t assert that the response isn’t a direct accusation that Jesus claimed to be divine!

it’s not so simple, even if you say “so-and-so- thought Jesus was divine.” Because then you come to the question “Divine in what sense? How could Jesus be both divine and human?” and of course that question is still under consideration today by many Christian and non-Christian religions.

I would say that this objection is immaterial. The accusation of blasphemy isn’t an accusation of divinity – rather, it’s an accusation of a claim of divinity. That’s all we’re looking for here, so we’ve reached our goal: by the testimony of the chief priest, Jesus claims divinity. QED.

It’s not legitimate to just dismiss Ehrman because he is no longer a believer. That’s an ad hominem attack.

An ‘ad hominem attack’? Do you mean something like:

I think you have to realize these are being written by a Protestant professor who also teaches in Charlotte NC, down the road from Chapel Hill. So there may or may not be some personal rivalry going on.

 

[Benadam]

There are two ways to study any religion: as a believer and as an outsider. Ehrman is clearly in the ‘outsider’ camp.

I think he is not completely an outsider.

It’s not legitimate to just dismiss Ehrman because he is no longer a believer.

the ‘outsider’ description would be better served by someone who hadn’t decided to reject the historical meaning of the subject. I think it’s legitimate to be wary yet not read a book by it’s cover. Also, I doubt an exclusively historical view is possible for a theistic religion founded on history without bumping into it’s theology.

 

[HarryStotle]

But to read our current orthodoxy back into Matthew is a stretch. Of course if you are Catholic, you do it; but a neutral third party wouldn’t be so sure. And I think that’s the OP’s issue–how can you “prove” Ehrman is wrong? I don’t think you can. It’s a matter of belief, not facts.

Well to claim orthodox Christology is MERELY current is an even bigger stretch.

What do you make of Jesus’ words…

I tell you, something greater than the Temple is here. (Matt 12:6)

For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. (Matt 12:8)

The Temple, for the Jews – not for current orthodoxy – was the unique dwelling place of Yahweh in the universe. There was nothing “greater that the Temple,” except God himself, for first century Jews.

Jesus was speaking to first century Jews. To say, “something greater than the Temple is here” is implicitly stating that God himself is here. This is not current orthodoxy. This is Jesus speaking to first century orthodox Jews in terms they understood.

What does it mean to be “Lord of the Sabbath?” The Sabbath signified the day that is the reminder of God’s rest from creation. It is the final, eternal, rest after the work of humanity on earth has been completed. There is only one Lord of the Sabbath – God, himself. To be the Lord of the Sabbath is to be the one who rested on the seventh day, and established that day as the day of rest. There is only One who determines the day of the Sabbath rest, the One who created the universe and rested from that work. The Creator God.

These are two simple statements from one paragraph in Matthew. There are myriads of others. Jesus claimed to be God explicitly in Matthew, Mark and Luke – not according to current orthodoxy but according to the first century Jewish orthodoxy.

So we are not reading back into the Gospels current orthodoxy. We are gleaning from them the orthodoxy of Jesus and Judaism.

 

[HarryStotle]

Of course if you are Catholic, you do it; but a neutral third party wouldn’t be so sure.

It isn’t clear what a “neutral third party” would be.

Would they be utterly oblivious to all Christian, non-Christian and atheistic claims?

Would they know every Christian, non-Christian and atheistic claim, and “neutrally” adjudicate among them? Based upon what, exactly?

Wouldn’t the best measure be someone with full knowledge of Scripture, the Jewish religion, the culture and religious life of first century Palestine, the origin of every Christian belief and practice, among a few other germaine characteristics.

It seems to me that anyone who could stay “neutral” after all that just wouldn’t be the kind of intellect who could adjudicate the questions that are at stake in the debate.

In past posts you referred to “disinterested authors” as the optimal ones to write books on topics because, otherwise, biases would be in play.

You still haven’t answered how someone could be “disinterested” or “neutral” and remain that way when answers to life’s biggest questions are at stake.

I’m just not sure that that kind of neutrality or disinterest would be a very valuable asset. It is like someone remaining a disinterested bystander when a life needs saving. Wouldn’t it be better to have someone who “gets it” and jumps in with both feet once they realize the importance of what is going on in front of their eyes?

“No, no! Let me just stand back and not get involved no matter what. I want to remain neutral and disinterested!”

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Mark 8:36)

Perhaps we could suggest – to counter a serious case of current orthodoxy – a slight revision to the text:

What shall it profit a man, if he takes in the entire world as a disinterested third party, but loses his own soul?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

An ‘ad hominem attack’? Do you mean something like:

Erikaspirit16:

I think you have to realize these are being written by a Protestant professor who also teaches in Charlotte NC, down the road from Chapel Hill. So there may or may not be some personal rivalry going on.

I see your point, but obviously you always have to be aware of the relationship between two parties who are arguing. Even on this thread, several of us have debated some of these points on other threads, and we carry that history with us but others are not aware of it.

 

[HarryStotle]

Gorgias:

An ‘ad hominem attack’? Do you mean something like:

Erikaspirit16:

I think you have to realize these are being written by a Protestant professor who also teaches in Charlotte NC, down the road from Chapel Hill. So there may or may not be some personal rivalry going on.

I see your point, but obviously you always have to be aware of the relationship between two parties who are arguing. Even on this thread, several of us have debated some of these points on other threads, and we carry that history with us but others are not aware of it.

So who should adjudicate between parties with “a history?”

Should it be a neutral third party (whatever that entails,) or should it be someone in possession of the complete truth?

It still isn’t clear what “neutrality” entails, or why it is necessary, as far as the resolution of differing opinions is concerned.

Once a neutral third party shows any kind of alignment to one of the parties in the dispute, aren’t they – by definition – no longer neutral?

Ought we always stay “neutral,” or “disinterested,” even when faced with the truth?

How does disinterested differ from non-committal?

 

[ConstantLearner]

Someone said Ehrman is a fraud. I don’t know about fraud, but badly misguided and misinformed does fit.

I don’t think he’s a fraud. He believes what he writes, but he is either agnostic or atheist now. He does believe Jesus existed, though.

 

[HarryStotle]

If you object to Ehrman, or Brown, describng a progression in Christology in the gospels, address them. Then we might have a chance of discussing whether there is a progression. As it is, your comment just confuses the original question by making a distinction but not applying it to the discussion.

There is a compelling case to be made that all of the Gospels and all of the writings of the NT were penned prior to 70 AD. That doesn’t leave much time for a “progression in Christology” in the Gospels.

Beyond that, John was the beloved disciple who was with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry. To claim John was more influenced by later Church thinking – from those who had far less direct contact with Jesus than he, John, did – is an idea that is rather difficult to swallow. Especially since no attempt is made to justify it except the supposed fact that John wrote his Gospel late in the first century so there was time for him to adjust his thinking about Jesus to what others around him were saying.

That would seem to minimize the fact that if Jesus was, indeed, God and John spent three years walking around with God on earth that would have had just a bit of unforgettable influence upon him. To forget that seems to assume that Jesus wasn’t God, but just some other good Joe with whom John hung around but who had a forgettable sort of real identity. Seems to beg the entire question of Jesus’ divinity and what kind of impact that would have had upon John, however. Let’s just conveniently forget THAT when we apply our current theology to the case.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Ehrman is an “outsider” in the sense that he doesn’t claim to belong to any organized religion. But of course he has his own opinions, and he’s advocating a certain point of view. But basically I think his point is well taken: If you remove the lens of faith, and only look at the written evidence, what do you see? Or, to put it another way, should Catholic theologians be writing only for Catholics who already believe, or should they be writing for a wider audience who need to be convinced of certain things?

I’m aware of all the arguments for the divinity of Jesus, and as a Catholic, I believe them. So no one has to try and convince me of something I already believe. But the question is, did people at the time believe Jesus was divine? Or, to put it a slightly different way, did people at the time believe Jesus THOUGHT or CLAIMED to be divine?

I personally agree with Ehrman that the belief that Jesus was divine was something that developed over time, until you get to the Gospel of John. And then there is the whole other question of “In what sense was he divine?” Clearly in the Gospels the Apostles are not treating Jesus as if he were God. They are not praying to him, kneeling down and worshipping him, etc. Far from it! They are questioning and doubting him all the time. Would Judas have sold him out to the authorities if he thought Jesus was God? Now the instances in the Gospels cited in other comments above that CAN be used to show the divinity of Jesus are all ambiguous to a greater or lesser extent. Whether you equate “son of man” to God, or read that the high priest called Jesus a blasphemer, etc. there’s always an element of ambiguity. Seen through the lens of faith, it’s crystal clear. Seen by an outsider, it’s not.

I think the question to ask is at what point did SOME people begin to think that Jesus was divine? Certainly when Jesus began his ministry no one thought he was divine. Even Mary–would God have to be circumcised? Would you chide God for staying behind in the Temple to argue with the elders? Etc. Even after the Resurrection, Thomas doubted, and the Apostles were all locked in the upper room, afraid. If they believed Jesus was God, why would they be afraid? There is a good Catholic argument that they did not all believe in the divinity of Jesus until Pentecost, when they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. St. Paul makes that point several times in his epistles.

But again, I’ll express my bewilderment: Why are some of you so concerned that this might have been an historical development? Why is it so necessary for you to believe that everyone believed “from the get-go” that Jesus was divine? Why does this seem so threatening to your faith?

 

[HarryStotle]

Clearly in the Gospels the Apostles are not treating Jesus as if he were God. They are not praying to him, kneeling down and worshipping him, etc. Far from it! They are questioning and doubting him all the time.

Well, except when they ARE worshiping him.

When Jesus calls Peter out of the boat and he starts to sink, Jesus saves him. How did the disciples respond? They worshiped Jesus.

Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came toward Jesus. But when he noticed the strong wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!” Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?” When they got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (Matt 14:29-33)

Notice that in the third temptation of Jesus, same Gospel, in chapter 4, Jesus says to Satan, ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve ONLY him.’ Yet, here Jesus lets the disciples worship him. And Matthew uses exactly the same Greek word εχηγεομαι (transliterated: proskuneo) in both cases.

Jesus implicitly assumes divinity by letting them worship him – something a good Jew would never permit others to do to him – unless he was God. As Jesus reminded Satan, ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve ONLY him.’

If Jesus is not divine in Matthew, what are the disciples doing worshiping him and what is Jesus doing letting them worship him?

 

[HarryStotle]

But again, I’ll express my bewilderment: Why are some of you so concerned that this might have been an historical development? Why is it so necessary for you to believe that everyone believed “from the get-go” that Jesus was divine? Why does this seem so threatening to your faith?

We could turn this around, I suppose, and express our bewilderment at why you are so concerned to make Jesus’ divinity a “historical development” and object so strongly to the idea that the Church believed Jesus was divine from the get go.

Why does that seem so threatening to you that Jesus himself claimed to be divine and that realization was with the Church from the beginning? Why does it need to be a “progressive development” rather than the reality that the Apostles had available to them but were reticent to completely accept until Pentecost?

 

[Dovekin]

That doesn’t leave much time for a “progression in Christology” in the Gospels.

How is this relevant to the quote from Ehrman?
Ehrman alludes to facts anyone can see:

1. Mark begins with the baptism of Jesus
2. Luke begins with the Annunciation of Jesus and parallel conception of the Baptist.
3. John begins with the creation of the cosmos.

Ehrman then interprets these theologically:

1. Mark sees Jesus as adopted by God.
2. Luke sees Jesus as divine from the Annunciation.
3. John sees Jesus as divine from the creation.

The basis for Ehrman’s theological statements seems obvious, ie Jesus was considered divine from the time the accounts of his life begins. This principle is flawed especially with respect to Mark. Mark may have believed Jesus was divine as much as John did, he just started his account of his life differently, without a statement of preexistence.

Over the course of the next 500 years, the Church:

1. condemned adoptionism.
2. identified Mary as Theotokos, mother of God.
3. clarified that Jesus is always divine.

There is an obvious progression in the gospel beginings in the order Mark, Luke, John, no matter when they were written. There are also clear lines from those beginings to the later controversies.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Let’s take Matthew 14:33 as an example. Jesus walks on the water and the Apostles in the boat “worship” him.
This makes it sound like they believed he was divine. And yes, you can certainly interpret it that way. And as a Catholic, you would.

But. Let’s take a look at the Greek word used for “worshipped” in that verse: prosekynēsan (προσκυνέω). (I’m not pretending I know Greek–I know the letters, and when I go to Greece I know enough to find the right toilet–“gyno-something” vs. “andro-something”. I am using this web site, but I’m sure there are lots of others. προσκυνέω | billmounce.com) This word is used 60 times in the New Testament; 13 times in Matthew, 2 times in Mark, 3 times in Luke, 7 times in John, 3 times in Acts and 4 times in the epistles; the rest are in Revelation. So it’s a word Matthew in particular likes.

So what are the possible meanings?

1. to do reverence, or homage by kissing the hand;
2. to do reverence or homage by prostration;
3. to pay divine homage, worship, adore;
4. to bow in adoration

Do any of them unambiguously mean “worship the one God”? Maybe 3; perhaps 4. But let’s go back to Matthew and see how he uses the word. Matthew 2:2 where the Magi tell Herod they want to “worship” Jesus or 2:8 where Herod is speaking to the Magi, telling them that he wants to “worship” the infant Jesus too. Is Herod acknowledging that Jesus is God, or makes a claim to be God? I don’t think so. The Magi? I don’t think so. And in 2:11 when the Magi finally find Jesus, they “worship” him. Later, in 4:9, where Satan is tempting Jesus in the desert, Satan asks Jesus to “worship” him. This is absurd if you see the word as “worshipping God”; it makes a lot more sense if you translate it as “do homage.” In 8:2 a leper comes to Jesus, “worships” him, and asks to be cured. Is the leper acknowledging Jesus’s claim to be divine? Or just giving him a sign (kneeling) of homage or reverence? Or 9:18 when the man whose daughter has died “worships” Jesus and asks him to bring her back to life–acknowledgement of divinity or homage/reverence? Or 18:26, where the servant who has borrowed money goes to his creditor and “worships” him–a very clear case. Certainly not acknowledging that his creditor is God! Rather, giving him reverence and homage. There are more examples if you care to read them.

John, on the other hand, always seems to consistently use the word prosekynēsan as “worship God”–as we would expect him to do. Revelation is the same.

So when the Apostles “worship” Jesus after he walks on water, does that unambiguously mean that the Apostles in the boat acknowledge either that Jesus is divine or that Jesus claims divinity? I don’t think so. Certainly homage or reverence…divinity? Only through the lens of faith.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

My position is simple: what I believe as a Catholic should not color what I think of non-Catholic analysis. My concern is NOT to prove that Ehrman is right or wrong, it’s simply to hold that Ehrman’s position is a reasonable one supported by logic and a certain interpretation (without faith) of what is in our records–i.e., New Testament. So, to go back to the original question, how can you “refute” Ehrman’s position, I don’t think you can. You can make arguments against it, but ultimately those arguments are based in faith as a believer. They would not be convincing to a non-believer. Just ask Ehrman!

 

[Gorgias]

I see your point, but obviously you always have to be aware of the relationship between two parties who are arguing. Even on this thread, several of us have debated some of these points on other threads, and we carry that history with us but others are not aware of it.

Yeah, but as you said in your own post, “deal with what he says, not who he is”.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I see your point, but obviously you always have to be aware of the relationship between two parties who are arguing. Even on this thread, several of us have debated some of these points on other threads, and we carry that history with us but others are not aware of it.

This is getting off the topic, but I’ll bite. I suppose you could break it down:

1. You have no idea who Bart Ehrman is. You have to argue with what he writes.
2. You are aware of who Bart Ehrman is, that he is “an agnostic atheist,” and he is a former Fundamentalist. Now you have a choice: You can either argue with him on an ad hominem basis (bad) or argue with what he writes–address his ideas, not who he is. But now, even if you are arguing with his ideas, you are aware that Erhman is coming at the subject with a certain point of view and certain prejudices. As you formulate your own arguments, you use your knowledge of Ehrman’s background to focus your arguments on his known weak points. You’re not attacking him because of who he is, you’re attacking his ideas in a broader sense because you know his background.
3. And I suppose there is a 3rd possibility: You actually know Bart Ehrman. You were a former student who has a grudge against him because he gave you a bad grade. Again, you can argue with him on an ad hominem basis (bad) or argue with what he writes. But an outsider reading your argument would want to know that you had a personal grudge or an agenda (you want to work at UNC, and Erhman is holding up your application). It would be important to know if your motivation was a search for the truth or simply to argue against Ehrman no matter what he said or wrote.

In my earlier comments, I was urging people to argue with Ehrman’s ideas, not simply oppose him because of who he is (former Fundamentalist, “agnostic atheist,” etc.). And we have at least one former student of Erhman’s in the discussion, but we don’t know his relationship with Ehrman. Does he admire him? Hate him? We don’t know, but that means we have to be more careful in evaluating what he says because we don’t know if personal agendas play a part in the argument.

 

[Gorgias]

And I suppose there is a 3rd possibility: You actually know Bart Ehrman. You were a former student who has a grudge against him because he gave you a bad grade… But an outsider reading your argument would want to know that you had a personal grudge or an agenda (you want to work at UNC, and Erhman is holding up your application). It would be important to know if your motivation was a search for the truth or simply to argue against Ehrman no matter what he said or wrote.

For what purpose, though? Easy – so that you could disregard his argument based on who he is.

And we have at least one former student of Erhman’s in the discussion, but we don’t know his relationship with Ehrman. Does he admire him? Hate him? We don’t know, but that means we have to be more careful in evaluating what he says because we don’t know if personal agendas play a part in the argument.

… so that you can disregard his arguments not on their strengths, but because of who he is.

Both of these are examples of ad hominem approaches. Both are invalid. You can put lipstick on it… but the argument here is still the ad hominem pig.

(Your #2 comes the closest to being reasonable: knowing who the person is, you look more closely at his arguments – but you still only look at the arguments. In the end, though, the identity of the person making the arguments is immaterial.)

 

[Erikaspirit16]

For what purpose, though? Easy – so that you could disregard his argument based on who he is .

Well, no. its’ more like the last sentence in your post–to examine someone’s argument more closely because you think he might have some bias or agenda. You’re not attacking his character, and although you might be suspicious of his motives, you wouldn’t attack his motives unless you saw a link between his motives and his argument.

 

[Gorgias]

its’ more like the last sentence in your post

you wouldn’t attack his motives unless you saw a link between his motives and his argument.

But, even so, I’d hope that the ‘attack’ was directed toward the argument on its merits, and not on the arguer, right? “I dismiss your argument because you’re biased” is still ad hominem – if the answer is “I dismiss your argument because it’s bunk”, then all good…!

 

[HarryStotle]

There is an obvious progression in the gospel beginings in the order Mark, Luke, John, no matter when they were written. There are also clear lines from those beginings to the later controversies.

I fail to see how responding to the misconceptions and heresies of those inside or outside the Church is to be considered “obvious progression.” Elaboration or clarification or fuller explication, but not progression.

The fact that I can better articulate the beliefs I have always held does not imply that I have progressed in my beliefs. They are the same beliefs that I have always had, I just am now better able to articulate them.

On the other hand, some beliefs I have held in the past I no longer think to be true. They have been replaced by other, different, beliefs. That might be called progression if those former errant beliefs have been replaced by current, more correct beliefs.