Bart Ehrman quote from an article- please help refute!

[PickyPicky]

I decline to dip my toe into the theology.

 

[ATraveller]

This is why Tradition is important.

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

I would say many Protestants, despite what is ‘officially stated’, Tradition plays an important role in practice.

 

[Gorgias]

@PickyPicky

The problem with this chronological sequencing of the Gospels is that it does not reflect the actual chronological development of Christian views of Jesus.

I would argue that this notion is mistaken at its core. It asserts a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” relationship between [one particular view of] the chronological appearance of the Gospels and the historical development of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. It is appealing only in the way that “folk etymology” is appealing.

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

This, too, is problematic. To assert a development of theological maturity and refinement from the Synoptics to the Fourth Gospel is a reasonably widely held view; but, to claim a similar significant development among Synoptics is difficult to hold to – especially since the Synoptic Problem is still, well, a problem. Can we assert differing viewpoints between the three Synoptic Evangelists? Certainly. Can we make grand, sweeping claims about what Christians believed in the rough time frames in which these Gospels were beginning to be circulated, vis-a-vis one another? Hardly.

So, both of these assertions of Ehrman are far from well-founded.

Not the theological interpretation that followed in that note.

Got it. Ehrman made observations about the text of the Gospels. You extrapolated and drew conclusions about a putative parallelism in the development of Christian theology. Respectfully, I think your claims are bunk.

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.

Right. For those who claim early authorship, these claims are laughable. For those who claim late authorship, these claims are reasonable. My reaction?

I decline to dip my toe into the theology

Ahh, c’mon in! The water’s fine!

 

[Dovekin]

For those who claim early authorship, these claims are laughable. For those who claim late authorship, these claims are reasonable. My reaction?

Right. As far as you are concerned, there is no reason to engage Ehrman or trying to find a common ground or even understand him. Anyone disagreeing woth you is to be laughed at, their position dismissed as bunk.

Good luck with that attitude.

 

[PickyPicky]

I would argue that this notion is mistaken at its core. It asserts a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” relationship between [one particular view of] the chronological appearance of the Gospels and the historical development of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. It is appealing only in the way that “folk etymology” is appealing

Well, it seems to me to do exactly the opposite.

Can we assert differing viewpoints between the three Synoptic Evangelists? Certainly. Can we make grand, sweeping claims about what Christians believed in the rough time frames in which these Gospels were beginning to be circulated, vis-a-vis one another? Hardly

I’ve no doubt that an occupational hazard for historians is a tendency to exaggerate the significance of their own findings. But here you seem to be coming just a step too close to suggesting that a distinguished New Testament scholar like Ehrman should not use the findings of his textual scholarship to inform his rôle as an historian of the early Church. Which I am sure you would be loth to do.

Ahh, c’mon in! The water’s fine!

When I come across members of the Christian family quarrelling about theology it seems to me polite to avert my gaze. I am not always as polite as I should be, mind you, but I do try.

 

[Gorgias]

As far as you are concerned, there is no reason to engage Ehrman or trying to find a common ground or even understand him.

What “common ground” do you see in terms of Scriptural exegesis between Christians and self-professed atheists? Just curious.

(P.S., I think I understand his view… I just disagree with it.)

Anyone disagreeing woth you is to be laughed at, their position dismissed as bunk.

No… but after hearing an opposing view, and engaging it and explaining why we disagree, what should be our attitude to the conclusions they reach based on presumptions we reject?

Good luck with that attitude.

Thanks! It’s served me well so far…!

 

[PickyPicky]

What “common ground” do you see in terms of Scriptural exegesis between Christians and self-professed atheists? Just curious.

Odd question in a thread that has discussed the common ground between Ehrman and Fr Raymond Brown. But (butting in where I should really wait for @Dovekin) my answer would be that Christian and atheist scholars should both be committed to an honest attempt to seek the truth. That should be their common ground.

 

[Gorgias]

my answer would be that Christian and atheist scholars should both be committed to an honest attempt to seek the truth. That should be their common ground.

OK. Fair enough. So, common cause in “the search for truth”, although we should recognize that where we find that truth and the ‘truths’ that are found will be vastly different…

 

[PickyPicky]

Some of them, no doubt.

 

[Dovekin]

What “common ground” do you see in terms of Scriptural exegesis between Christians and self-professed atheists? Just curious.

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.

You do not have to read these in any particular order.

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.

Again no particular order. The question is only if we xan agree on these facts. I think Ehrman would accept these things as true, though he might correct something.

 

[Mintaka]

If you don’t want to read Pitre, there’s actually a free scholarly resource online about the Second Temple Messianic expectations, and the allied eschatological expectations of God. I’m embarrassed to find out that it’s been online for over twenty years, and I’m just seeing it!

It’s a page by a Finnish Lutheran professor, containing the full text of books on Messianic/eschatological prophecies in the OT (that’s The Messiah in the Old Testament in the Light of Rabbinical Writings, by Risto Santala, translated by William Kinnaird), and another on NT Messianic/eschatological references back to the OT and Second Temple/rabbinical beliefs (The Messiah in the New Testament in the Light of Rabbinical Writings). There’s also a book specifically on Midrash Ruth and its Messianic banquet teachings (The Midrash of the Messiah: The Messiah and His Meal).

To go to the Ehrman question, Santala shows from the literature, again and again, how the Messianic expectation of Jews included (and still includes, if you read the right books) a pre-existent Messiah that had been hanging around God through all the ages from before the Creation of the world – even before we get to the hints that God might actually show up as the expected Messiah, or that God and the Messiah were somehow tied together.

He also shows fully that Matthew and Mark were just as open, about Jesus being God as well as the Messiah, as Luke or John or Paul ever were. But we’re not Second Temple Jews, so we don’t get it. In fact, there are plenty of references in Luke and John and Paul that we don’t get, either, but which are equally as obvious in context. Fun and informative!

I really am enjoying Santala. He’s filling in a lot of info that Pitre couldn’t fully cover, and it makes the Bible more fully comprehensible.

 

[Dovekin]

Thanks!

It touches on some things I have been looking into, though it does not seem to address my interest du jour, messiah as seen in the Song of Songs. I am looking forward to reading it when I get a chance.

 

[HarryStotle]

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.

This would be problematic at its core since to make the question of the divinity of Christ dependent upon “universal agreement” regarding the authorship of the Gospels is to offload a determination of the primary question onto opinions regarding a secondary one.

Besides, the authorship of the Gospels isn’t as up in the air as some would have us believe. So merely because “everyone” doesn’t agree, does not entail there isn’t a very strong case to be made regarding authorship.

Furthermore, there are other methods and sources available which can help to settle the question of the divinity of Christ and what that meant precisely, besides chronology or authorship. Although, I would still argue that authorship is far more determinable than the skeptics want to admit.

 

[PickyPicky]

The matter under discussion was not whether the divinity of Christ could be said to depend on the authorship of the Gospels. It was the allegation that the Gospels could not have reflected different views of Christ’s divinity because they were written by two of the Twelve and two companions of Peter and Paul — four members of a tightly connected group of apostles and disciples, who must have shared a common view. Such an allegation does of course depend on the accuracy of that assumption about the authorship.

I note your opinion that the authorship is readily determinable.

 

[Gorgias]

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)

But here you seem to be coming just a step too close to suggesting that a distinguished New Testament scholar like Ehrman should not use the findings of his textual scholarship to inform his rôle as an historian of the early Church. Which I am sure you would be loth to do.

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

You know what? I was unwilling to attempt to refute your take on things… until I went back and re-read the Ehrman quote that the OP originally provided:

For Mark, Jesus was adopted to be God’s son at his baptism. Before that, he was a mere mortal. For Luke, Jesus was conceived by God and so was literally God’s son, from the point of his conception. (In Luke Jesus did not exist prior to that conception to the virgin – his conception is when he came into existence). For John, Jesus was a pre-existent divine being

If this quote is accurate, then Ehrman really is saying that Mark’s Gospel makes claims of adoptionism and Luke’s Gospel makes claims denying Jesus’ divine existence prior to the Incarnation.

So, I’m going to hold my ground. Ehrman’s historical claims are without merit. He’s reading into the Gospels to provide a sort of skewed historical eisegesis that runs contrary to what the Church has proclaimed. Did some make the claims that he elucidates? Certainly. Did the evangelists, as he claims? Certainly not.

 

[Dovekin]

He’s reading into the Gospels to provide a sort of skewed historical eisegesis that runs contrary to what the Church has proclaimed.

Agreed. That is what we have been saying:

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.

We have actually been discussing the following remark:

The business about the divinity of Jesus and exactly how all that works is something it took the Church about 500-600 years to work out so that what we believe today became the dominant orthodoxy.

 

[PickyPicky]

The basis for Ehrman’s theological statements seems obvious, ie Jesus was considered divine from the time the accounts of his life begins.

I’m quite out of my depth in any discussion of First Century Greek texts, but I have read a little Ehrman and I’ll just add that it is a bit misleading to suggest that his interpretations in this matter are based solely on where the Gospel biographies begin. He deals much more extensively with the texts than that. Which is not to say he is right or wrong: to say that would demand an expertise I don’t have.

 

[Sedona]

Ehrman has sterling credentials and he shares the views of many mainstream bible scholars with impressive credentials. Can you substantiate the claim that he is a fraud, or did you really mean to say that you disagree with him?

All the best!

 

[Dovekin]

I simplified fo a number of reasons, using an idea expressed by Raymond Brown to focus on one part of Enrman’s statement. Ehrman attests to his use of the principle in his remarks, eg:

Here he is not born of a virgin and he is not adopted by God at the baptism (neither event is narrated in John – and could not be, given, John’s Christology).

“Because neither event is narrated, neither event happened” is another form of “Jesus’ divinity begins where the story of it begins.” Or a more general principle includes both.

 

[PickyPicky]

Yep, OK, I don’t want to be picky.