Bart Ehrman quote from an article- please help refute!

[czeaiter]

I recommend that book too.

 

[Onthisrock84]

What he says is nothing new. The early Christian’s argued about this vigorously. Many of the “heresies” revolved just around these views. It’s either you believe the Church was correct and guided by the Holy Spirit, or that the heresies were only heresies because they didn’t come out on top. Bart Ehrman has written some interesting stuff but he is also blinded by historicity. I myself suffered from this. History helps in faith but faith comes from a different place. If you only look at f facts you find yourself digging a hole where your faith will dismantle. Historically the only thing every historian agrees on is that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Anything else there is disagreement. Thus you won’t find the Truth on historical history to gain faith. I tried that and it doesn’t work.

 

[kainosktisis]

εχηγεομαι

I think this (“εχηγεομαι”) is “exegeomai” - not “proskuneo” (“proskuneo”).

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

εχηγεομαι

I think this (“εχηγεομαι”) is “exegeomai” - not “proskuneo” (“proskuneo”).

You are correct. It should have been προσεκύνησαν.

Matthew 14:33 V-AIA-3P
GRK: τῷ πλοίῳ προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ λέγοντες
NAS: who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying,
KJV: came and worshipped him,
INT: the boat worshipped him saying
https://biblehub.com/greek/4352.htm

 

[Dovekin]

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.

If you cannot see the progression here, or want to deny it is a progression,good luck with that. You wil not get very far engaging Ehrman if you cannot agree on a starting point.

I have also talked about a progression in Christology. By Christology I mean how the person and nature of Christ is articulated. You apparently have a different idea. Again, it does not seem like the best way to engage this material.

I am not at all sure what you are insisting on or why. It seems to isolate you for no good reason.

 

[HarryStotle]

Dovekin:

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.

If you cannot see the progression here, or want to deny it is a progression,good luck with that. You wil not get very far engaging Ehrman if you cannot agree on a starting point.

I have also talked about a progression in Christology.

Why is it that only the beginning of each Gospel marks its furthest point of “progress in its Christology?”

Each one ends with the Resurrection and appearances of the risen Christ to the disciples.

So after reporting all the words and miracles of Jesus in each Gospel we are going to rely on where each begins to mark its place in the “progression” by looking only at the beginning? Seems logical .

Think about this for a minute. So John writes a purportedly late Gospel – assuming Ehrman’s dating – and only then, after being persuaded by the later first century Church, many of whom never actually witnessed Jesus personally, does he come to the realization that Jesus is God. Does that actually make sense to you?

Wouldn’t that realization have occurred to John after spending three years with Jesus, witnessing his miracles and teaching? What about being at the cross, watching Jesus die and then witnessing the resurrected and ascended Jesus? Wouldn’t he have had just an inkling of a realization that “this guy is different?”

Seems to me that having witnessed Jesus, up close and personal, if John and two of the other three Gospel writers – Matthew and Peter (recorded by Mark) – hadn’t come to the realization that Jesus was God by the time he had ascended into heaven, I doubt that anything that happened subsequently would have been any more convincing.

There is so much in Matthew and Mark that, to a first centuryJewish audience familiar with the Old Teatament, points to the divinity of Jesus, only a modern skeptic like Ehrman (and those who share his lack of perspective) could miss it.

Sure, Ehrman doesn’t believe Jesus was God. In fact he doesn’t even believe God exists. That means trusting him to see things through the eyes of the Apostles regarding when and where they came to the most important realization of their lives is like trusting a fox to look after your chickens.

Peter was martyred around 67, James before that. Paul’s encounter with Jesus was well before 40 AD. Do you think they all believed Jesus was just a good guy? They willingly suffered persecution and death. For what exactly? Unless they had much deeper insights into the nature of Jesus’ divinity than Ehrman supposes, their actions and persuasiveness to those who hadn’t personally encountered Jesus must have been founded on something more than “well he was a good guy.” That isn’t what they say in the writings of the New Testament.

It only got made up later by John? Sorry, not credible.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

It is one heck of a leap to go from the former set of observations to the latter set of conclusions! Worse yet, by leaving Matthew out of his discussion, he avoids a potentially serious stumbling block to his theory! (I mean… ignoring 25% of the Gospels, in order to avoid a major hole in one’s theory… that’s good scholarship, isn’t it? )

 

[PickyPicky]

I have absolutely no expertise in biblical scholarship, and I am in no position whatsoever to judge Professor Ehrman’s work, but perhaps I may be allowed a few points.

@Dovekin expresses Ehrman’s points neatly, but of course the professor does not rely simply on the openings of the Gospels, neither does he ignore Matthew.

Whether the Gospels all end with Christ’s appearance to the disciples depends on one’s view of the ending of Mark, of course, but in any case Ehrman does not ignore the Resurrection period: indeed he believes it was at the Ascension that the disciples became convinced of Christ’s divinity.

I thought it was commonly agreed that the early Church took some generations coming to a common understanding of Christ’s divinity. Ehrman suggests that at first some followers believed Christ became divine when He was raised to Heaven; some that He became divine at His adoption by God; some that He was divine from His conception as God’s son. In time the Church came to the orthodox view expressed in John, that Christ was God and was with God always.

I don’t understand what’s so shocking about this.

 

[Dovekin]

This quote from Ehrman is not the totality of his teaching. He addresses Matthew elsewhere I am sure, and I am sure it fits in with the idea presented here.

I am the one who connected his quote with the beginnings of the 3 gospels mentioned. Raymond Brown discusses these issues that way (including Matthew) and I knew Ehrman respected Brown’s scholarship. It was a way to critique Ehrman based on a comparison with Brown’s handling of it.

IOW, there is a richer analysis of the issue that lies behind what Ehrman offers in a brief quote. Jesus in Mark’s gospel is more ‘human’ than in the other gospels, become exasperated and overwhelmed and shows other behaviors we do not associate with the Divine. That fits better with an adopted Jesus than with the Christology that was eventually worked out. And adoptionists use that evidence as well as the beginning of the gospel to come to their position. We could address it by looking at all the evidence in Mark, or we could address it by taking a single instance and showing how that is wrong. The latter is, to my mind, the better approach for casual discussions and comboxes.

 

[Dovekin]

after reporting all the words and miracles of Jesus in each Gospel we are going to rely on where each begins to mark its place in the “progression” by looking only at the beginning?

No one has suggested that we do that. But by addressing the beginnings of the gospels, we can address some issues more easily. It gives some insight into the positions of the evangelists and what they felt was important, what unfolds over the course of the gospels.

If you want to take a different approach, please do. But do not criticize others who critique Ehrman differently and do noy care to address your particular issues. Leaving out a contentious issue to focus on a more pressing one does not mean we do not care about the contentious. If it did, them St Mark is an adoptionist.

 

[Dovekin]

In time the Church came to the orthodox view expressed in John, that Christ was God and was with God always.

I don’t understand what’s so shocking about this.

That is largely the position I work from.

In the past 20 years, some scholars have questioned this, and asserted that the other gospels assert the divinity of Jesus as strongly as John. NTWright, Hengel, etc. This should not negate the process of articulation that took place, but it is a reasonable approach. The full implications of that approach are not clear to me.

 

[Jezra]

The first three letters of Genesis in Hebrew are Beth, Resh and Aleph. ברא They form the first three letters of “In the beginning”

The word Creator in Hebrew is בורא which contains ברא. ברא on its own also means “created”.

John 1
1 In the beginning (ברא) was the Word, and the Word was with God (Creator = בורא) , and the Word was God (Creator = בורא, Created = ברא).
2 The same was in the beginning (ברא) with God (Creator = בורא).
3 All things were made (Created = ברא) by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made (Created = ברא).

Beth means Household
Resh means Chief, Head
Aleph means First.

Jesus is therefore the first born of God’s household, God’s son.

Baptise in Hebrew is טבילה, phonetically very close to בורא and ברא.

Mark, Luke and John are therefore all accurate.

For Mark, Jesus was God’s son at baptism. טבילה, בורא
For Luke, Jesus was ברא, conceived from בורא
For John, Jesus was ברא, “In the beginning” and “created”.

Why ברא?

ברא are the initial letters for BaR-Adam: Son of Man and BaR-Abbas: Son of the Father, both titles used of Jesus. One needs to go back to the “Holy Language” of Hebrew to solve/reconcile.

Hope that helps.

 

[Gorgias]

I thought it was commonly agreed that the early Church took some generations coming to a common understanding of Christ’s divinity.

Right, but not in the way that Ehrman suggests. The histories of the Church don’t suggest that the common understanding was ‘adoptionism’, followed by ‘divine at conception’, followed by ‘divine always.’

Ehrman suggests that at first some followers believed Christ became divine when He was raised to Heaven; some that He became divine at His adoption by God; some that He was divine from His conception as God’s son. In time the Church came to the orthodox view expressed in John, that Christ was God and was with God always.

And that’s the erroneous view we’re railing against, here. It wasn’t consecutive and tied to a common understanding of a particular Gospel, in a chronological ordering.

I don’t understand what’s so shocking about this.

It’s that he miscasts the historical development of the understanding of Christ’s divinity.

He addresses Matthew elsewhere I am sure, and I am sure it fits in with the idea presented here.

OK. Perhaps you can find the citation, in a context that addresses Matthew in the context of his claims as presented here.

It was a way to critique Ehrman based on a comparison with Brown’s handling of it.

When I get a chance, I’ll have to get back to Ehrman and Brown, then. But, if you can help out and provide citations…

In the past 20 years, some scholars have questioned this, and asserted that the other gospels assert the divinity of Jesus as strongly as John.

Right. Pitre makes this claim, as well, and demonstrates how Jesus is claiming divinity, but in ways that would be clear to Jews.

 

[PickyPicky]

Right, but not in the way that Ehrman suggests. The histories of the Church don’t suggest that the common understanding was ‘adoptionism’, followed by ‘divine at conception’, followed by ‘divine always.’

Nor does Ehrman. In fact he specifically denies that this was a succession of common understandings.

It wasn’t consecutive and tied to a common understanding of a particular Gospel, in a chronological ordering

Nor does Ehrman suggest that it was.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Right, but not in the way that Ehrman suggests. The histories of the Church don’t suggest that the common understanding was ‘adoptionism’, followed by ‘divine at conception’, followed by ‘divine always.’

Nor does Ehrman. In fact he specifically denies that this was a succession of common understandings.

It wasn’t consecutive and tied to a common understanding of a particular Gospel, in a chronological ordering

Nor does Ehrman suggest that it was.

Ok, then. You’re claiming that @Dovekin is in error, then? Since, after all, he states:

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.

 

[PickyPicky]

No I’m not claiming @Dovekin is in error.

“The problem with this chronological sequencing of the Gospels is that it does not reflect the actual chronological development of Christian views of Jesus. That is to say, even though it is true that these are the views as they develop through the Gospels (from the earliest to the latest), some Christians were saying that Jesus was a pre-existent being (a “later” view) even before Paul began to write in the 50s – well before our earliest Gospel was written. The reality is – and Brown would not have disagreed with this – views of Jesus did not develop along a straight line in every part of early Christianity and at the same rate. Different Christians in different churches in different regions had different views of Jesus, almost from the get-go.”

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God

 

[Dovekin]

Dovekin:

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 thought it would be obvious I meant

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.

Not the theological interpretation that followed in that note.

“No matter when” was actually meant to mean no matter what order they were written in.

 

[catholic1seeks]

One way to “fill in the blanks” of the allegedly low Christology of the Synoptic Gospels is to consult other New Testament texts.

Christian orthodoxy wasn’t some fourth century innovation. Christians of the apostolic Church were just as adamant about having a common faith (Council of Jerusalem, anyone?) as the post-Nicene Church was.

And so here is where Paul’s writings come into the forefront. Some of Paul’s letters are the earliest Christian documents. And these writings are clear that Christ is both per-existent and divine.

The idea that Paul and John would have such divergent views from the other Apostles, like Matthew, or Peter (the origin of the Gospel of Mark) is ridiculous. Moreover, Luke was PAUL’S COMPANION. If anything, the original Apostles and their disciples had to have known whether or not Christ was merely man or not — even if technical language didn’t develop until later.

You don’t have to believe in “Apostolic Tradition” or the guidance of the “Holy Spirit,” as I’m sure Bart is suspicious of. Rather, you just have to use common sense. The early church was collegial, not sectarian. Moreover, CHRIST was the CENTER of the early Church. If any bit of theology was focused on more than anything else, it would be Christ – Who He was, why he is important. The idea that these connected Apostles and disciples would have such contradictory views of Christ is laughable (in the sense that some Apostles would say he is equal to God, and others only mortal, etc).

 

[PickyPicky]

Although of course the laughability you describe depends on the Gospels being the work of “these connected Apostles and disciples” when as you know the authorship of the Gospels is not a matter of universal agreement.

 

[catholic1seeks]

It was to the early Church and the first ones who ascribed the authors to which documents.

This is why Tradition is important.

Protestants and skeptics alike fall to sola scriptura, it seems.