How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee by Bart D. Ehrman

How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee Reviews

• 
  Will Byrnes

  And it came to pass that I read and ye shall learn of a pretty amazing book. Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman takes on the subject of how, in history, the notion of Jesus as god developed. Was it there from the beginning? How did it arise? What does it even mean? Was he considered divine by believers before conception, at conception, at baptism by John, when he died on the cross, when he rose from the dead, when he headed upstairs to the executive offices? And the answer? Yes.
  
  As with many mysteries there is a paucity of physical evidence. One might consider Ehrman’s task a very challenging episode of [Incredibly] Cold Case Files, or maybe fodder for a new version of a favorite show (as if there are not enough already), CSI Antiquity.
  
  Not much to work with here as far as physical evidence goes, but Ehrman does apply his considerable skill to analyzing what documentation we have, tracing provenance, to the extent possible, applying what we know of the period(s), and lasering in on crucial questions.
  
  
  Bart D. Ehrman - image from NPR
  
  Ehrman makes it very clear that he is not about trying to turn anyone away from a particular set of beliefs.

  I do not take a stand on the theological question of Jesus’s divine status. I am instead interested in the historical development that led to the affirmation that he is God.

  Or who said what, and when, where, and why did they say it?
  
  My knowledge of the period is extremely limited. Twelve years of Catholic school taught me a lot more about obedience than it did about biblical scholarship, and while I have read the odd book about the period I claim no particular expertise, so am not in a position to offer a much educated consideration of the information presented. Ehrman, on the other hand, has written vast amounts on things biblical. I refer you to his considerable bona fides,
  here. I am inclined to give his very accomplished, educated interpretation of the material he examines a bit more weight than I might the opinions proffered by individuals boasting lesser scholarly accomplishment.
  
  Key, of course, is the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Without that there is no such thing as Christianity, as prophets and Messiahs were sold by the gross at the dollar-store equivalent of the era. In fact, Ehrman opens his book citing an unnamed individual whom one might expect is JC, as the details are incredibly reminiscent. But no, it turns out to be
  another prophet entirely. (No, not
  Brian) His pilot was not picked up by the world at large, so you might find him in the antiquity channel’s version of “Brilliant but Cancelled.” And he was not alone. But, since any Tom. Dick, and Appolonius could claim to be a prophet, it was the claim that Jesus was resurrected that was key to a long run, and Ehrman focuses on that.
  
  He looks into the details of Jesus’s death and supposed return. For example, how likely was it that he was buried at all? The answer will surprise you. How about the likelihood that someone who had just tried to have him done in would arrange a burial? How likely might it be for wanted criminals, as the apostles were, to stick around after their chief had been so harshly treated? It continues, but you get the idea. Each tiny piece needs to be examined.
  
  One of the things that Ehrman does consistently and well is to define terms. Divine? In what sense? There is a lot of variety in levels of divinity. Ehrman points out a pyramidal structure common to many religions, and how supposedly monotheistic faiths shuck and jive trying to explain how the multiple divine entities in their religions do not violate the monotheism-shrink-wrap guarantee covenant (it’s in the mouse print). He applies his piercing logic to notions of resurrection as well.

  For [most ancient people—whether Christian, Jewish, or pagan] the human realm was not an absolute category separated from the divine realm by an enormous and unbridgeable crevasse. On the contrary, the human and divine were two continuums that could, and did, overlap.

  (
  Bette Midler knows about that, for sure) So what was it that was supposedly seen?

  It was widely believed in antiquity that the spirit we have within us was also made of “stuff.” It was material. But it was very highly refined material that could not be seen with the eyes. (Kind of like what people think when they imagine they’ve seen a “ghost”—there’s something there, made of stuff, since it can be seen, even though it’s pure spirit.) When Paul speaks of a spiritual body, then, he means a body not made up of this heavy, clunky material that now makes up our bodies, but of the highly refined, spiritual stuff that is superior in every way and is not subject to mortality.

  Who knew there was such a level of detail to consider? Was the risen Jesus made of chunky human flesh or the sort ectoplasm more usually associated with someone like, say,
  Slimer. Or was he some ethereal non-substance?
  
  And what about the veracity of the stories that were told of the supposed resurrection?

  Even apart from the fact that they were written forty to sixty-five years after the fact, by people who were not there to see these things happen, who were living in different parts of the world, at different times, and speaking different languages—apart from all this, they are filled with discrepancies, some of which cannot be reconciled. In fact, the Gospels disagree on nearly every detail in their resurrection narratives

  So, we are relying, in the gospels at least, on an inconsistent story, from multiple non-witnesses, that was the end result of a decades-long biblical version of the game
  telephone? These days, of course, you can probably become a god, or at least obtain, Wizard-of-Oz-style, a document attesting to your divinity, by sending a certain sum to a particular web site. (GodsRUs.com would be my guess). It was so much more complicated back then.
  
  So, what might be less than divine in Ehrman’s examination? Well, we are digging through some very old material here, and it is not surprising that in a book focused in the Middle East a bit of sand gets in. The level of detail does, on occasion, cause one’s eyes to ascend to another level of being. But I found this a fascinating, and educational read, opening up many notions to consideration that I had never really thought about. Whatever it may do for your spirit, this book will definitely stimulate your brain.
  
  Whether you find this examination of history divinely inspired or deserving a place on the lower levels of you-know-where, it is certainly a fascinating look at a critical element of history, and, by implication, religious belief. But don’t take my word for it. See, feel, and read it for yourself. And if it doesn’t work for you the first time, hey, you can always come back to it.
  
  Review first posted - May 23, 2014
  
  Published - March 25, 2014
  
  =============================EXTRA STUFF
  
  Links to the author’s
  personal,
  Twitter and
  FB pages
  
  Ehrman’s blog,
  Christianty in Antiquity
  
  Check here for a very nifty collection of
  audio and video clips of the author
• 
  BlackOxford

  The Aberrant Religion
  
  Christians, or more precisely Paul of Tarsus, invented not just a religion but also a new form of religion, one constituted by belief rather than by ethical or ritual action. This religion is markedly different from that which was practiced by its nominal focus, Jesus. And it is different from all contemporary and subsequent religions. It is a religion which claims to know the ultimate truth about reality and demands that its adherents accept, profess, and, if called upon to do so, enforce that truth. Such a religion, based on correct belief, is bound to insist that its own origins are divine in order to justify its claim. Faith, that is, created the divine Jesus as an epistemological imperative.*
  
  The above is my view not Ehrman’s. But it could easily form the overarching theory for which Ehrman, and the scholars on which he bases his argument, provide the factual data: Faith, once adopted as the principle of finding out about the world, inevitably leads to the divinization of some part or aspect of the world. The object of faith is not the source of faith but its essential product. This object is not born complete in the minds and culture of a group but evolves as necessary to protect the principle of faith itself, adapting and, where necessary, distorting, the existing, usually implicit, epistemological principles as it proceeds. The narrative of How Jesus Became God outlines this historical process.
  
  Faith, in other words, manufactures a guarantee for its own validity. It constitutes a self-sealing system of thought which is impenetrable. Faith also attaches to what is available to ‘prove’ itself. Paul in his writings, the earliest in Christianity, uses what is convenient (but never central) in Hebrew literature to make his point. No wonder he frequently appears somewhat confused about his object, which is only of secondary importance. This object was not a man, since Paul never met Jesus and apparently knew next to nothing about his life. Nor was it the authority of a religious tradition or scripture, since Paul took great pains to show why historical Judaism was wrong. Faith for Paul is a kind of intellectual obstinacy.
  
  Paul’s object of faith was a vague idea, his own, which he called Christ. The precise character of this idea was uncertain to him and to his contemporaries. Paul hints at its divinity but can’t seem to make up his mind about what that means. Only subsequently is the confusion reduced, after perhaps six or more generations of faithful believers have a go at retelling, embellishing and editing the stories they have heard about Jesus.** Even then the confusion about Paul’s object never is completely eliminated. Conflicts, heresies, and intellectual politics are the hallmarks of Paul’s religion of faith to the present day.
  
  The reason for such continuing conflict of course is that Pauline Christianity is an extremely literal affair. Whatever the object of faith, that object must be formulated in words before it can be attested by believers. The formula is the only reality of concern, no matter how arcane, incomprehensible, or self-contradictory it may be. Language not experience becomes definitive. Thus the creed (from Latin credere, to believe) takes the place of any emotional or spiritual event in religious life. This, of course, places language itself in the position of a divine, and therefore unchanging, entity. And this in turn necessitates ecclesiastical control of the meaning and interpretation of language. Ultimately, religious authority claims its place not just as the arbiter of doctrine but also as the arbiter of thought itself.
  
  Christianity is, consequently, a decidedly aberrant form of thought. Aberrant because it is a departure from every other standard of thought, philosophical or religious, that has ever been proposed. But it is also aberrant in its classification of all other modes of thought as various sorts of belief in competition with itself, as statements of alternative belief rather than what they are: ethical and liturgical rituals... and some very fine poetry that no one takes literally.
  
  The world, Pauline Christianity claims, cannot live without faith and refuses to admit even the possibility that faith is its own questionable invention. Christianity’s self-guarantee is constituted by the Incarnation and Resurrection, the doctrines of God’s becoming a part of his own creation and overcoming it - not as explanatory myth, or edifying example, or evocatively fey poetry but as certain truth. It is not sufficient to act as if these doctrines were true; it is necessary to convince oneself fervently and without hesitation that they are true in order to be ‘saved.’ This distinguishes Christianity not only from all other religions but from all other modes of thinking.
  
  Therefore, according to Christianity, the object of faith is of central relevance to human life. Of course, in the ensuing debate about this object, Christianity has both the home team advantage as well as age on its side. The Christian apologetic makes all religion a matter of faith: Judaism is incomplete faith; Islam is erroneous faith, Buddhism doesn’t merit the term faith at all; and polytheism, ancient and modern, is childish, superstitious faith. Atheism, of course, is simply ungrounded faith because it refuses to specify a divine object. The issue being pressed is faith not Jesus - this is the perennial sleight of hand which has been performed by Christian apologists in plain sight for two millennia.
  
  So I think that Ehrman has done a service in summarising the historical, sociological, and biblical research about how Jesus became God. But I also think he misses something important about why Jesus became God. This why it seems to me is inherent in Paul’s conception of faith as the essence of religion. Once his premise about faith is accepted, something or someone has to be supplied as its object. Anything will do, no matter how mundane or abstract. Paul invented Christ as that object. More modern folk, imbued with the Pauline spirit, have substituted any number of cult leaders, other arcane deities, language in the form of uncertain ancient texts, or even alien beings as their objects of faith.
  
  To put the matter bluntly, if somewhat crudely: Paul’s most enduring contribution to the world is not his promotion of the divinisation of Jesus. Rather it is his establishment of the principle of faith as a legitimate criterion for human action and a requirement for authentic religion. To put it even more crudely, it is this same Paul who has provided the world with its first defensible theory of terror: faith justifies. It justifies not just unkindness, but also cruelty, murder, war and the continuous persecution of any who oppose the idea of faith. Medieval Crusaders, ISIS, the Know-Nothing American fundamentalists, and the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo cult all share Paul’s theology of a justifying faith. It seems to me obvious that the evolution of this theory of faith has come to mean far more than the question of Jesus’s divinity.
  
  * For what Paul means by faith, see:
  https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... and
  https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
  
  **Ehrman has raised considerable ire among evangelicals by suggesting that the idea of Jesus’s divinity evolved. Authors like Larry Hurtado claim that the recognition of his divine status was ‘explosive’ and complete ab initio. This despite a clear development in thought from Paul’s epistles to John’s gospel, a period of seventy years or more (and some rather different accounts in the intervening Synoptic Gospels). The indisputable fact that the character of Jesus’s divinity remained problematic even among fervent believers over centuries also undermines any claim to ‘explosive certainty’. One reason why I am concerned to shift attention to the epistemological principle of faith is that it really doesn’t matter whether the ‘revelation’ of Christianity was more or less instantaneous or developed in the course of time. Once faith becomes the criterion of truth, it demands a divine object. Paul apparently had such an explosive experience. Others had to interpret his reports. In doing so, they differed, and continue to differ, in their opinions about what he meant. To claim instant recognition would seem absurd as well as irrelevant.
• 
  Anne

  2022 I'm back! But with the audiobook.
  And by the grace of the audiobook ye shall persevere.
  
  
  
  Yeah, so it helped, but this wasn't exactly what I was hoping for and I found myself zoning out a lot. I wanted more of Jesus/Christianity in relation to the things that were happening historically around him and his followers during the time that they were working out his divinity.
  It felt as though this circled around a lot of uninteresting and unnecessary stuff having to do with opinions as to what Ehrman thought certain scriptures may be referencing that I’d already heard about in other books. And while he touched on a few things that caused me to perk up every now and then, he didn't go enough into the actual politics of the days and years surrounding Jesus' life & death, or the years surrounding his followers for my personal taste.
  
  
  
  Also, a lot of seemingly rehashed stuff that I'd read in some of his other books.
  However, if this is your first book by Ehrman, your mileage may greatly vary. You do get a lot of Erhman’s information about early Christian theologians and the debates they had over which version of Jesus (and there were a lot!) they thought was correct, though. And if you aren’t aware of any of that already, those debates are quite interesting.
  
  
  
  The most interesting thing (for me) was the history of the Trinity as a concept and how they decided to go with what we consider the correct version today.
  There was also a good section on Constantine's role in bolstering Christianity to the status that it now enjoys.
  I wouldn't necessarily recommend this one to anyone who wasn't (like me) just sort poking around for accessible stuff on Biblical history, though.
  
  2019 DNF 20%
  
  I may come back to this one someday. It wasn't horrible, but it was a bit too dry and crunchy for me to be able to really get into it. Non-fiction isn't my jam, but the subject matter is interesting to me, so I think I'll try a different book by this author later on.
• 
  Valeriu Gherghel

  Cartea lui Bart D. Ehrman este, desigur, ipoteza unui istoric. E greșit să vezi în acest volum o contribuție teologică. Și e inutil să polemizezi cu autorul pornind de la dogme (au început a fi formulate abia în secolul IV). Pe Ehrman îl interesează în special credințele din intervalul scurs de la Răstignire și pînă la primele scrieri creștine (epistolele lui Pavel, Evangheliile): de la anul 30 la anul 70, să spunem.
  
  Cartea pornește de la întrebarea cunoscută (mărturia lui Petru). Într-o zi, ajuns în Cezarea lui Filip, departe de Ierusalim, Iisus se întoarce spre discipoli și-i întreabă: „Dar voi, voi cine spuneți că sînt? (Matei, 16: 15). Știm răspunsul lui Simon Petru: „Ești Christos, Messia, Fiul lui Dumnezeu cel viu”. Dar ceilalți oameni, cei care au ascultat cuvîntările lui Iisus în Galilea, Petraea, Iudeea, în Ierusalim, ce au crezut cu privire la ființa lui Iisus? Cum ar fi răspuns oamenii simpli la întrebarea Lui? Pentru a găsi răspunsul, Ehrman nu are la dispoziție decît Evangheliile, scrisorile lui Pavel (îndeosebi Romani și Filipeni) și Faptele Apostolilor.
  
  Iată cîteva presupuneri:
  
  - un om deosebit, un învățător, un rabbi;
  - un profet apocaliptic, precum Ioan Botezătorul;
  - Messia;
  - Fiul lui Dumnezeu;
  - calea, adevărul și viața;
  - Dumnezeu însuși, Dumnezeu deplin (Evanghelia după Ioan, 10: 30: „Eu și Tatăl meu una sîntem”).
  
  Dar nu toți au crezut asta. Fariseii (și nu doar ei) l-au privit pe Iisus cu scepticism. Anna, Caiafa și apoi Sanhedrinul îl acuză de impostură, de hulă, de blasfemie: „Nu ești Fiul lui Dumnezeu așa cum pretinzi. Minți”. Pilat din Pont: Nu poți fi „regele iudeilor”, ești un rebel.
  
  O altă întrebare examinată de Ehrman: cînd a devenit omul Iisus Dumnezeu? Ipoteze care presupun o christologie a „exaltării”, a înălțării, a trecerii de la o natură umană la una divină, așa-numita „înfiere”:
  - la botezul în Iordan;
  - la Înviere.
  
  Și, în fine, răspunsul care s-a configurat după anul 50. Nu a fost vorba de nici o devenire. Iisus Christos a fost dintotdeauna Dumnezeu. Dumnezeu a coborît printre oameni (christologia întrupării). Apostolul Pavel pare să creadă că Iisus a avut o ființă angelică. Abia conciliul de la Nicaea (325) va stabili un răspuns pentru toți: Iisus = Tatăl = Dumnezeu. O singură dumnezeire în trei persoane.
  
  Chiar dacă nu și-a propus să convingă pe nimeni, prin lectura lui ingenioasă, Bart D. Ehrman ne îndeamnă să recitim cu atenție textele la care se referă și să medităm asupra lor. Nu e puțin lucru.
  
  P. S. În subtitlul cărții, exaltation nu înseamnă preamărire, ci „ridicare / înălțare de la condiția umană la condiția divină”. Trebuia găsit un termen mai potrivit.
• 
  Darwin8u

  So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. - Revelation 3:16
  
  
  
  'How Jesus Became God' is a good packaging of current scholarship on the historical Jesus for the neophyte. The book basically explores how the crucified Jesus transformed into not just the Messiah, but the Lord of all creation. He examines the exaltation of Jesus from an apocalyptic preacher from Galilee into a figure fully equal with God. He looks at how this type of change happened in Greek and Roman culture, in Jewish culture, and how Paul and later disciples of Christ were influential in transforming their crucified prophet into their risen Lord. He also spends a fair amount of time explaining why it is impossible for historians to validate miracles, a person's divinity or specific religious events like Christ's resurrection.
  
  Perhaps, I was just wishing for a bit more meat on the bones of this book or perhaps I was just not that surprised by many of Ehrman's points (He has covered several sections of this book in previous books about early Christianity and Jesus), but I kinda felt like this was just a watered-down repackaging of some of his better, more academic past efforts. Nothing too revelatory or Earth shattering. For me, it was about the same level of writing as Aslan's
  Zealot. It just seems these books while aiming for a bit of controversy (controversy sells), don't load their books with enough weight. Those who agree with them have already traveled a bunch of this same ground, those who don't agree with them are served a slim dish that seems a bit too facile. Or maybe it was just me.
• 
  Mara

  When I was a fundie/evangelical, Bart Ehrman was talked about like he was the anti-Christ. I read one of his less incendiary books (Misquoting Jesus) but never allowed myself to engage with any of his books centered around the New Testament or Christology. Even after I deconstructed, I didn't feel the need to pick him up. But as new layers to my deconstruction have been surfacing recently, I finally felt compelled to read this book, which had been so notorious & anathema to me back in the day. This was exactly the book I needed in this moment. So many thoughts, but really my biggest takeaway is that nearly ALL of the underlying facts were undisputed by my evangelical profs in grad school. It's the conclusions drawn from those facts that is different and it calls to mind the old adage - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This helped me understand that even post deconstruction, I'd been giving special pleading to this set of extraordinary claims.
• 
  Max

  Ehrman dissects the scriptures to show how beliefs about Jesus’s divinity formed and changed in early Christian communities. He does not dwell on his personal beliefs, although he mentions that he started out as an evangelical Christian and has become a skeptic. His thesis is that during Jesus lifetime his followers did not regard Jesus as God. It was belief in the resurrection that first persuaded early Christians to believe Jesus was divine and even God, but what this meant to different Christians varied widely. Ancients did not have the same perception of God as Christians do today. Again Ehrman is not espousing his personal beliefs. He does not say that he personally believes that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, only that this became an accepted belief among early Christians.
  
  Underlying Ehrman’s conclusions is his methodology. He relies primarily on the gospels, the Pauline epistles and the book of Acts. Except for Paul we do not know who the actual authors were, but we can tell that they were well educated writing in Greek and far different from the lower class illiterate Aramaic speaking followers of Jesus. Ehrman breaks these scriptures down into their underlying sources based on the construction, style of writing, vocabulary and consistency. For example, the author of Luke is also identified as the author of Acts, but not all of Luke came originally from the same source. Luke, Mark and Matthew are based on some of the same original materials and thus similar to each other. John is very different and was written later. All were written well after the death of Jesus and likely based on oral traditions that were later converted to writing. Also our earliest existing copies of the gospels were made centuries later and subject to changes made by the scribes. These changes too can often be teased out. Paul’s writings are the closest in time to the death of Jesus but say relatively little about what Jesus said or did. Ehrman points out that even some parts of Paul’s writings are copied from an earlier source and some letters ascribed to Paul were written by later followers.
  
  Ehrman then analyses the sources for consistency. He identifies, as have many others, some sources shared by the gospels called Q, M, and L. He then uses the “criterion of independent attestation” to determine what is likely to have been held as a common belief by Jesus’s followers. He is looking for multiple sources that say the same thing. Thus if the same thing appears in writing unique to Mark and John and Q, Ehrman accepts it. Conversely if it is only in Q, even if the same Q text shows up in both Matthew and Luke, Ehrman does not. When the same incident is reported differently in the different sources he rejects each interpretation as having been a common belief.
  
  Ehrman also analyses the scriptures in the context of the culture and writing style of the times. The idea of God was different for ancient peoples than what we are accustomed to today. Ancient peoples had hierarchies of gods. For Romans, Jupiter and Mars might be particularly powerful, while someone like Julies Caesar or Augustus may have also been considered a god but also being human he was near the bottom in the ranks of divinity. The Jews too had hierarchies of divine beings with angels and humans ascribed varying degrees of divine powers. Thus when analyzing text it is important to understand what the text’s author meant by god. As for the writing style in antiquity, embellishment was common practice. Accuracy was often less important than making a point.
  
  Sifting through all this Ehrman comes to the conclusion that prior to belief in the resurrection, Jesus may have been ascribed some small level of divinity by his followers but he was not considered God. Belief in the resurrection is based on visions of Jesus after his death. Ehrman only accepts that those of Peter, Paul and Mary (Magdalen) are actually proven to have taken place based on his analysis of the scriptures. Again Ehrman is not saying that Jesus actually appeared in these visions, but he does accept that those three sincerely believed they saw Jesus. Here again one has to put the visions in the context of the beliefs of ancient peoples who would much more readily accept supernatural events than people today. The belief that Jesus could not only rise from the dead but leave earth and return at will made him a powerful divinity indeed.
  
  After Jesus death other notions of his divinity developed as diverse Christian communities formed. Some as recorded in Mark thought Jesus became divine when baptized by John the Baptist. Others as recorded in Luke thought Jesus became divine when he was conceived or born. Paul writes of Jesus as an angel who became human and then was exalted upon his death by God. Perhaps he was the Angel of the Lord referred to in the Hebrew Bible who appeared to Hagar, Abraham and Moses. Only later did the concept develop that Jesus was also God as expressed by John. John was written decades after the other three gospels and represents Jesus’s divinity very differently. John quotes Jesus affirming that he shared Godly status with the Father. John, however, was the author of these quotes, not Jesus, according to Ehrman based on his analysis. The style of language of Jesus and John are exactly the same in John’s gospel. This is totally out of context of the way Jesus would have spoken, but it is consistent with the writing style of the times. Authors regularly made up the speeches of those they were writing about to embellish their points.
  
  In the second century the earliest Christian views became regarded as heresy and John’s view increasingly became accepted as orthodoxy. The history of early Christian beliefs was rewritten to show that the apostles and others had always shared the emerging orthodox view of Jesus nature. Opposing views were slammed by writers known as heresy hunters. The adoptionists held that Jesus was basically just human. The docetists claimed Jesus was always a spiritual being that just appeared to be human. The Gnostics believed Jesus was two beings, a human who became inhabited by a separate divine being.
  
  What became the orthodox view accepted by most Christians by the third century held that Jesus was one being both truly human and truly God, also that he was both with God and God. But this left a question. Were there two Gods or one? Orthodoxy called for monotheism. Some ideas that were accepted as orthodox for a while later became heresy. For example those by Justin Martyr, Novatian and Arius which held that Jesus was part of God and human but not quite equal to or one with the father. The modalists believed that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Ghost were simply different expressions or modes of behavior of a singular God. The modalists too were later deemed heretics. By the fourth century the answer finally accepted as orthodox, though more perplexing, was that there were three separate persons in one God, the trinity.
  
  The Council of Nicea in 325 CE resolved that Jesus was of one substance and coeternal with the Father. The Nicene Creed was adopted as a statement of Christian faith. Under pressure from Constantine to have a unified church for the Empire, few attending objected. As Ehrman states, “…an itinerant apocalyptic preacher from the rural backwaters of Galilee…had now become fully God.” However the Arian point of view still maintained many adherents in the fourth century. Followers of Arius believed that Jesus had been begotten by the Father and thus was not coeternal and was subordinate to the Father. The Nicene Creed was designed to cast aside the Arian point of view but it would have to wait for The Council of Constantinople in 381 to clearly establish Arianism as heresy. Other finely nuanced views evolved and were put down at succeeding ecumenical councils in the next century. Heretics were punished, but none more so than the Jews who Christian orthodoxy held responsible for killing Christ.
  
  Ehrman stops at the fifth century. Obviously new ideas about what it means to be Christian and what Christians should believe didn’t stop. Ever since, vitriol and war between Christians have been used to establish who is right. I don’t know how accurate Ehrman is about what Jesus’s followers believed. We have no firsthand accounts. But he does create serious doubts about the reliability of the scriptures. The upshot to me is that Jesus offered a simple message to simple people only for it to be taken over and distorted by theologians, philosophers, emperors and other powerful people, the very people Jesus confronted. They turned the simple message into highly nuanced abstract metaphysical concepts that I can’t get my head around and many who disagreed lost theirs. I’ll end on a high note and recommend one of Ehrman’s favorite passages that he believes truly represents the words of Jesus. Google Matthew 25:31-46 or go to
  
  
  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/... .
  
• 
  Roberto

  
  Passaparola
  
  Inizio subito con il dire che questo saggio, scritto da Bart Ehrman, filologo, accademico, biblista specializzato in studi sul Gesù storico, non si ripropone di cambiare la credenza dei lettori in merito a Gesù (Ehrman non è Odifreddi, è uno studioso raffinato e obiettivo). Sostiene infatti correttamente Ehrman:
  
  "La fede non è conoscenza storica, la conoscenza storica non è fede"
  
  Al termine dell'interessante saggio quindi chi crede continuerà a credere e chi non crede continuerà a farlo.
  
  Ehrman, con metodo, senza pregiudizi e in modo assolutamente pragmatico analizza solo le fonti disponibili, incrociandole e aggiungendoci poco di suo (e in questo caso dicendolo chiaramente).
  
  Cito solo alcuni punti a mio parere interessanti. Innanzitutto l'idea che oggi noi abbiamo di Dio (altissimo, potentissimo, distantissimo) non è quella che avevano le persone a quei tempi. La gente in quei periodi era abituata a parlare di dei pagani che scendevano sulla terra; dei che addirittura si potevano incontrare, basti pensare al fatto che Alessandro Magno era considerato figlio di Zeus, ossia dio egli stesso. In questo contesto, assume una diversa prospettiva l'idea che una persona potesse essere "divina". Resta il fatto che non esiste traccia del fatto che Gesù abbia detto di essere figlio di Dio.
  
  Un secondo concetto è che i fatti del tempo di Gesù sono stati tramandati solo per via orale. Gli apostoli parlavano aramaico, non sapevano leggere né scrivere e quando Gesù fu crocefisso scapparono tutti a gambe levate dalla paura. E' immaginabile pensare che chi, parlando, cercava di convincere qualcun altro di avere conosciuto una grande persona, si lasciasse trasportare dall'entusiasmo e calcasse un po' la mano con miracoli e aneddoti. Se le cose si svolsero così, è comprensibile che i vangeli, che comparirono decenni dopo scritti in greco da persone istruite, riportassero i fatti in una forma per così dire imprecisa o distorta, tra l'altro parlando in prima persona, come se citassero direttamente la parola di Gesù.
  
  Un terzo concetto importante è quello della presunta resurrezione, peraltro citata in modo sempre vago e impreciso dalle stesse fonti. Bene, è proprio per questa presunta idea di resurrezione che Gesù ha potuto differenziarsi da tutti le altre centinaia di profeti che circolavano in quei tempi. Senza quella, che "sanciva" la vita oltre la vita, di fatto non ci sarebbe stato cristianesimo.
  
  Un ottimo saggio, che nonostante la mole si legge bene, anche se spesso i dettagli riportati sono minuziosi e forse non così fondamentali.
  
  Il senso del libro credo sia contenuto nella frase seguente:
  
  "Per comprendere Gesù ho dovuto ricontestualizzarlo, ovvero adeguarne il messaggio a una nuova epoca: quella in cui vivo. A dirla tutta, sono convinto che Gesù sia sempre stato ricontestualizzato da persone che vivevano in epoche e luoghi diversi. I suoi primi seguaci, dopo essersi convinti che Dio lo aveva resuscitato dai morti ed esaltato in cielo, lo trasformarono in qualcosa che non era mai stato e interpretarono la sua figura alla luce della nuova situazione. Altrettanto fecero in seguito gli autori del Nuovo Testamento, che ricontestualizzarono Gesù e lo interpretarono alla luce della loro situazione, ancora più diversa. E i cristiani del secondo e terzo secolo, per i quali Gesù era un essere divino incarnato più che un profeta apocalittico. E i cristiani del quarto secolo, che sostenevano che Gesù esistesse da sempre e fosse uguale a Dio padre quanto a status, autorità e potere. E i cristiani di oggi, convinti che il Cristo divino in cui credono sia assolutamente identico all'uomo che batteva le polverose strade della Galilea annunciando la distruzione imminente."
  
  Un libro che, alla fine, parla di storia.
• 
  Louise

  Bart Ehrman digests biblical scholarship into an easy to read text for believers and non-believers alike. While 270pp is more than sufficient for his thesis, along the way he presents interesting concepts and the reader learns a lot about the process of biblical research.
  
  Ehrman develops the concept that it was resurrection and its aftermath that confirmed Jesus as equal to god. In learning how "exaltation Christologies gave way to incarnation Christologies" (p. 263), I also learned a host of other new vocabulary words and terms (synoptic, hyperstasis, heresiology and docstism to name a few).
  
  The book begins with the context of Jesus's time. Many early religions had human-deity combinations, the emperor was considered a god and it was not uncommon for gods to mate with (or rape) female mortals. While all this was present in his world, Ehrman concludes that in his lifetime Jesus did not claim divinity nor was divinity ascribed to him. Ehrman feels a case can be built that Jesus might have said he was a king, but the case for Jesus claiming divinity for himself is flimsy. There were many apocalyptic preachers in this time. Jesus, is baptized by one, and becomes one.
  
  The reader learns how unique the gospel of John is. It is the most theological of the gospels and is the only one where Jesus is quoted as alluding to god-like status for himself.Written long after Jesus's death and resurrection, (Ehrman sees these as words ascribed to Jesus, not words he had said.) The other gospels are silent on this. Ehrman concludes that Paul considers Jesus like an angel but not the equal of a god.
  
  In the two centuries following the death of Jesus, followers had disparate views of how to understand his life and death. Ebionites kept their Jewish customs and saw Christ as a human adopted by God. Theodotians also felt Jesus was a human adopted by god, with some members believing he was divine and others that others that he was a man "empowered" by baptism. Docetists believed him completely divine by nature. Marcionites, Gnostics, Separationists and Modalists all had different interpretations, some believing in the existence of two or more gods. Ideas were first unified by theologians Hippolytus and Tertullian into the concept of the trinity which over the centuries has endured. A description of these schools of thought is followed by a discussion on the early attempts to resolve the (human/divine) "ortho-paradoxes".
  
  Ehrman concludes with his personal journey. He is up front (from Chapter 1), that while a biblical scholar, he is not a believer. This does not at all color this work which has plenty of information and food for thought for both believers and non-believers. To describe his personal journey he goes back to his understanding of Jesus and the apocalyptic nature of the times. Just as Jesus was "recontexturalized" in the 400 years covered in the text, he continues to be today by believers and non-believers.
  
  While this will anger fundamentalists, others, believers and non-believers interested in this topic will appreciate the scholarship this book presents.
  
• 
  Tanja Berg

  This was a fascinating tale of how an apocalyptic preacher from the hamlet of Nazareth eventually became god. The author makes it clear from the beginning that he is a non-believer, but the book should be interesting enough from a theological perspective. I found it fascinating.
  
  Things I've learned:
  
  1) The divine as perceived 2000 years ago was something on a continuum. It was not "us down here and the god up there" like now. There were angels, and demons and deities on many different levels. Some gods took human forms for a brief period of time, and some human became gods. Such as some Roman emperors.
  
  2) There was a dispute among the early Christians whether Christ really had a physical reincarnation or whether it was merely spiritual. The first notion won.
  
  3) There probably wasn't any grave. The crucified were normally left to rot on the cross - this was part of the punishment - and the Romans were certainly not inclined to be lenient during Passover, a time of unrest among the Jews. Plus, Jesus followers had scattered and he didn't have any family with connections in Jerusalem that could request such an honor. It's unlikely a single grave could have been provided. This is a later addition, in order to support the physical reincarnation.
  
  4) The early Christian and the early church struggled greatly with unifying several gods - the God of the New Testament and Jesus - so that Christianity would remain a monotheism. After long and hard discussion, the complicated result was the holy trinity, that has baffled theologians ever since.
  
  5) Christ went from being seen as mainly human and the adopted sun of God - something which in that time and day was an honor of importance - to having been completely divine from conception to death.
  
  There is much more to be had from this book, but these are the points that struck me the most and that I will be left with.
  
  I found it absolutely fascinating how the author goes through accepted dogma and picks it apart, presenting more likely scenarios. He is very clear on what can and cannot be known, and on different likelihoods and probabilities, based on what we can know. Christianity has had such a huge influence that it is fascinating reading from a sheer historical perspective.
  
  I loved this book so much that I immediately downloaded another one by the same author, "Heaven and Hell - a history of the afterlife".
  
• 
  William Mcneely

  In sum:
  Bart Ehrman is an excellent writer, he draws you in with his style and his wit, as well as some moving personal autobiography. My problem with this work overall is first of all its weakness in citing sources. Yes this is not supposedly written at an academic level more of a pop-culture level, but the fact that when he cites sources it tends to be his own books--this just screams, "give me your money skeptics and doubters!" It might've been even more persuasive if he could back up his points not just from historical primary sources but also from secondary sources--scholars in the various fields he makes claims about other than his own books that he loves to cite. This book is definitely interesting, but it is quite inaccurate and leaves out many important details concerning some of passages of Scripture and the views of those who oppose him. If he wants to make a case that Jesus was deified by his followers. He may need to do a lot more work and research in regards to the arguments of the other side. While some parts were rhetorically convincing, the book was not logically convincing. Ehrman has a unique writing style and it is a shame that he is where he is at now concerning scholarship. He seems like a very kind person, so I'm not judging his character. But I do cast doubt on whether this book holds any substantive weight because of:
  1.) lack of citing sources other than his other writings. (Yes he does cite others but it is predominantly his own, or those who would side with his view, or some primary sources).
  2.) his exaggeration and many claims that are actually not backed up by sources
  3.) it's hard to trust someone who is a skeptic, he makes such "confident claims" yet he is an agnostic on many issues. It's hard to rely on someone who has so many doubts or confidence in things already proven to be plausibly true.
• 
  Andrew

  When reading books about religion, it's important to read them for what they proclaim to be rather than what we wish they would be. Bart Ehrman doesn't claim to be doing theology, or offering proof for God, or [insert desired misconception here]. He styles his study as an examination of the historic process by which a first-century Jewish preacher came to be viewed as God by his followers.
  
  It's a history of belief.
  
  And in this narrow endeavour Ehrman succeeds. There's a firm grounding in the belief systems of the time, especially how Romans and Jews understood divinity. There's also some clever (sometimes too clever) parsing of the New Testament in admirable attempts to reconstruct the apostles' perceptions of Jesus immediately after the crucifixion. And it follows the paths by which those perceptions and beliefs evolved right up to the Council of Nicea and the orthodox belief in Jesus' twin divinity and humanity.
  
  The requisite quota of German theologians are cited.
  
  Follow me on Twitter:
  @Dr_A_Taubman
• 
  Michael Finocchiaro

  Bart Ehrman is an interesting writer who was himself formerly a fundamentalist preacher with a deep knowledge of all the biblical languages. He has since become a critic of Christianity and this particular book explores how interpretations of the New Testament were manipulated in the early history of the church to provide a narrative and justification for the politics of that growing organization. I found it fascinating in that it challenges a lot of seemingly immutable truths such as the authorship of the book of Revelations which was actually not written by John the Evangelist, but by another writer, as evidenced by the language and phrasing used in the original.
  The book is bound to upset religious zealots, as it is often quite polemical. However, it is also factual and in this world of fake news and alternative facts, I found it a refreshing read.
• 
  Dennis Mitton

  I’ve sat in enough churches to know that sooner or later the question will rise: “If Jesus were to walk in here right now would he recognize this place as His church?” In ‘How Jesus Became God’ Bart Ehrman argues well that the answer is no. Not because the modern church is doing it wrong but because the question is wrong. Ehrman argues that our view of Jesus is an amalgam of historical fact, purposeful fiction, and a lot of wishful thinking that would probably surprise even Jesus.
  
  During the first centuries of the Christian church there was a constant battle for the primacy of ideas. Some believed that Jesus was fully human but an excellent moral teacher. A strong argument was made that Jesus was human and adopted by God at his baptism. Gnostics argued that Jesus discovered secret knowledge that was available to anyone as a trade for mortifying the evil flesh. It surprises people today to learn that many early Christians were vehemently anti-Semitic, believing the god of the Jews to be spiteful, mean, and petty in comparison to the gentle teachings of Jesus.
  
  Ideas, beliefs, and values change over time and the church is no different. In ‘Misquoting Jesus’ Ehrman outlined a strong argument that the New Testament is to some degree a fiction: we really can’t say for sure what the autographical texts said and we have firm evidence of tinkering. The history of the church follows a parallel line. During the first century one could take their pick from various views of Jesus, the new Christian church, and its relation to other religions. As an orthodoxy emerged, competing ideas were rooted out. “Heretics’ were hunted down. False teacher run out of town. The idea that Jesus was ‘very God of very God’ became prominent and dissenters where shunned. This ‘orthodoxy’ would have surprised many early followers of Jesus.
  
  For readers of Ehrman this will be familiar ground. His writing is accessible and he notes enough references to provide plenty of research. Like the response to his other books, not everyone will be amused. His argument is historical and fact based and doesn’t settle well with current orthodoxy. It’s a good read, though, for anyone interested in early Christianity and the development of the early church. There’s lots to think about here no matter what side of the coin you enjoy. A good book.
  
• 
  Gary Patton

  In his introduction, Mr. Ehrman explains that he is an ex-believer in Christianity and an historian. What a wonderful coincidence, I thought, because both statements describe me, as well. Like Mr. Ehrman, I too have credentials as an historian although I have never practiced as one. I earned a Master's Degree in History from the University of Toronto, in 1966.
  
  Also like the author, I have spent all the years since then reading about and getting to know the historical Jesus. I have from the Bible as well has secondary sources about Christianity and the man-God at its core.
  
  In Chapter 1, the author shares about someone very intriguing to Mr. Ehrman and his thesis. And the person is someone about whom I'd previously never heard, nor ever researched. He was a supossedly historical man named Apollonius. He allegedly lived in the second half of the first century after Jesus.
  
  The parallels between Jesus' story, as recounted in the Gospels, and that of Apollonius, in the extrabiblical
  writings about him, are many. These include, allegedly, a miracle birth, performing miracles, gaining followers, and becoming divine according to the author.
  
  Mr. Ehrman explains that 'divinity' of a human was something believed in by most first century pagans, Followers of Jesus, and even, Jews ...despite the monotheism of both the latter two groups. He offers no proof for his statement regarding the beliefs about 'dieties of Christians and Orthodox Jews.
  
  However, most biblical scholars agree that belief about hybred 'demigods' has been widespread down through Millennia. The stories started soon after the arrival of the 'Watchers'. The latter title is what the biblical character and author, Enoch, calls 200 unique, fallen angels.
  
  These angels rebelled against God and came down to live invisibly on earth in antiquity according to the ancient, non-canonized Books of Enoch 1, 2 & 3. The latter contain considerable detail about the Watchers and their activities. Enoch's books greatly informed the non-Scriptural beliefs of Christians, Jews, and pagans. There are several allusions to their content by Jesus and his Apostles, e.g., Hebrews11:5. There are also direct or near
  quotes from Enoch in the Bible Books of Jude and 2nd Peter.
  
  Enoch wrote about the Watchers and the giant, hybred creatures, called Nephilim, which they produced using human women. Pagans worshiped the Watchers and other fallen angels as small g-gods. The latter used completrly different names for themselves which changed from culture to culture over time. For example, the chief, non-mythical but real, small g-god was Zeus to the Greeks, and Jupiter to the Romans
  
  These evil, fallen angels are still active in the spirit world in which we live. They are very real, very powerful, and very dangerous according to Chapter 6, verses 10 to12 of the Book of Ephesians in the Bible.
  
  Mr Ehrman goes on to review that, from his point of view, Jesus never calls himself God except in the Book of John. He alleges, in line with some other Bible scholars, that this book was written about 50 years after Jesus' death and Jesus does not call himself God in any of the earlier-written Gospels.
  
  Mr. Ehrman challenges the Divinity of Jesus most strongly by deconstructing the resurrection of our Master. He discounts its credibility because of the paucity of non- historical evidence for it.
  
  As the author may never have believed, faith for a true Jesus Follower, if not cultural-only christians, trumps the lack of historical evidence for anything in the Bible. The New Covenant states this fact from beginning to end. "... without faith, no one can please God." (Hebrews 11:1 & 6)
  
  I did one crucial thing different than Mr. Ehrman. You need to know if you haven't already guessed it.
  
  I came to know Jesus, intimately, as a Friend as well as my Master and Saviour (Romans 10:8-12), through the power of the Holy Spirit Whom I know lives and operates within and through me. (1 Corinthians 6:19)
  
  As a result, several years ago, I turned my back on the traditional religion called Christianity. Long after Jesus' death, it was incorrectly labeled this
  by leaders of the early Roman Catholic Church. (Jesus Followers called what they practised, 'The Way'. The only three references to 'Christianity' in the entire New Covenant are each negative. Also, 'Christ' is a made-up transliteration (sounds like), not a translation, of the Greek word, 'kristos'.
  
  The correct translation of kristos is not Christ but 'anointed one'! Christ has been continued by translators purely out of tradition. In this regard, the major key is that Jesus hates tradition. He curses all those whom practise it! (Matthew 23:1-39)
  
  What Greek-speaking people of Jesus' time heard when kristos was used to describe Jesus was 'King'. This is extra-biblically documentable. But it's a seldom shared truth by Bible teachers or translators in order to conform to tradition. (Mr. Ehrman doesn't share it ...despite him probably knowingi it!)
  
  Forsaking traditional, religious Christendom, I became a radical. Like my Saviour, I am irreligious. Now, unlike scholar Ehrman, I simply follow Jesus, "God, The One & Only"!
  
  Blessings all!
  
  GaryFPatton
  (2014.04.28 © gfp '42™)
• 
  Kevin Stilley

  Reading Bart Ehrman is always a frustrating experience. He is knowledgeable, creative, and a brilliant communicator, -- exactly the kind of author that we all want to read. But he resorts to the most twisted exegesis of texts, conflates history's weirdest groups with Judaism and Christianity to arrive at a parody of Christianity that is unrecognizable, and completely ignores historical information that doesn't jive with the conclusion that he is promoting. In other words, he isn't honest.
  
  Readers of this book will want to also read
  How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature—A Response To Bart Ehrman which helps set the record straight on many of Ehrman's misrepresentations.
• 
  Michael

  When I was young, around twelve or so, and attending church regularly, I was already quite taken with the field of history and was a voracious reader. I was also becoming less engaged with the dogmatic aspects of Lutheranism in particular, as well as dogma in general. What did keep me "in the fold" was the music, the art, the pageantry, my love for the little girl down the street, and my burgeoning interest in the origins of Christianity.
  I was fortunate to discover, in a room off the annex entrance to the sanctuary, in a broken down bookcase, a multi-volume, scholarly commentary on both Hebrew scripture and the Christian Bible. I began borrowing those books, starting with Volume I: The Pentateuch (the Torah of Judaism), and reading them surreptitiously during Sunday services. I must admit it was heavy lifting for my twelve year old brain. This probably accounts for why I remember few details from those commentaries. What I do remember however, starkly, was my shock at finding out that the scholarly analysis of these ancient texts didn't quite square with the assumptions held by most believers and self-identified Christians. The specific statement which led to my little epiphany was that Moses wasn't the actual author of the books which were ascribed to him. A small thing, I know, but it was this small wedge which cracked the egg for me. I saw in a flash that Christianity existed and evolved in an historical context, yet it was never presented in that context to its congregants. It existed in a perfect cultural and historical vacuum. For me, that commentary let a little air into the closed room of my belief, thereby destroying the vacuum and ultimately showing me the exit from organized religion.
  It's been many years since I left that room, and somewhere, in the last dozen years, I was fortunate in finding the books written by Bart Ehrman. I just finished another one, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee and, as usual, Mr. Ehrman stuns. The question of how a Jewish, Apocalyptic, itinerate preacher, from the back woods of Palestine, became identified as the Lord of the universe, is pretty fascinating. It is a real pleasure to follow the author as he analyzes the textual material and places it in its Jewish, Hellenistic, and Roman context. The particular focus of this volume is the questions of exactly when did Jesus' followers first understand him to be god and what, precisely, they meant by god as applied to Jesus.
  The scholarly gravitas which Ehrman radiates in all of his books is on full display here, but this is not really the best way to introduce yourself to this author's voice and mind. I would highly recommend two of his earlier works, Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted as an introduction.
  Be warned though, these books will challenge basic assumptions, and ask you to re-evaluate cherished beliefs you probably hold.
• 
  Hexar Anderson

  Previously devout Christians such as myself, having finally abandoned the faith and superstition ingrained in my thought processes since childhood, and having thrown off the shackles of religion, have a nagging question that still begs an adequate answer or explanation: If Jesus was not truly the Son of God, then who was he really?
  
  Bart Ehrman, a preeminent New Testament scholar, provides in this book a plausible answer - that although Jesus did most likely exist as a first-century apocalyptic preacher, he almost certainly never claimed to be God during his lifetime, and after his death, his followers' beliefs about him evolved over time, elevating him to not only a deity, but equal and part of God himself.
  
  Many Christians assume that the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were written by the same-named apostles Matthew, Mark, and John, as well as Luke, a doctor who was a friend of Saul/Paul. This is most certainly not the case - most Biblical scholars believe that the first written gospel, Mark, was written as late as 65-70 CE, and the last, John, was written between 90-95 CE; in other words, a full thirty years after Jesus' death.
  
  Given the very long amount of time between these written accounts and the events they describe, is it possible that such accounts could have evolved over time, and that perhaps Jesus was not originally considered to be a god at all immediately after his untimely death via crucifixion?
  
  The author explores this question in depth, comparing and contrasting the gospels as well as Paul's letters, to make the argument via textual criticism, and I must say it is persuasive. For those of us who have been steeped in the text of the New Testament for the majority of our lives, it's surprising how many idiosyncrasies and discrepancies went unnoticed. Perhaps the faith, or belief without evidence, that I held that the gospels were inerrant and factual accounts of Jesus' life, was too strong to allow my mind to even recognize such discrepancies. Confirmation bias is scary that way.
  
  I would have rated this five stars, except that the first two chapters are dreadfully boring. Soldier through in order to get to the good stuff, or simply skip, because the meat and potatoes arrive in chapter 3.
• 
  Clifford

  Interesting read, but tedious. The author uses textual authority to establish various traditions for "how Jesus became God" -- whether incarnation Christology, exaltation Christology, or various heterodox approaches. The bottom line, though, is that Jesus wasn't claimed to be God during his lifetime, and only after the "resurrection" did such claims begin to be made on his behalf. The so-called resurrection is also examined, noting in particular that it would have been highly unusual for the Romans to allow burial of a crucifixion victim, since degradation of the body on the cross was part of the point--a warning to others. I wish Ehrman would take his argument a step further to explain why the leaders of the early church would have invented the resurrection story on which the whole thing hinges.
• 
  Tony

  How Jesus Became God explores, from a historical/secular perspective, the questions of when early Christians started to believe that Jesus was divine and what precisely they meant by his divinity. Readers will encounter topics such as: when, in his life, did Jesus become divine (at the resurrection, at baptism, before the world ever existed, etc.) and theories of how the three parts of what is today called the Holy Trinity relate to each other. Some of Ehrman's analyses are overly detailed. But, on balance, this is an interesting look at the evolution of early Christianity's key beliefs.
• 
  Tamara Agha-Jaffar

  In
  How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee,
  Bart D. Ehrman traces how Jesus, a humble preacher from Nazareth, came to be worshipped as God.
  
  Ehrman argues that Jesus came to be recontextualized at different times and in different places by different followers, all of whom promoted a different theological agenda. He places the historical Jesus in the context of his time and conducts textual analysis of relevant documents, including the Old and New Testament. His aim is to show how a belief in the divinity of Jesus evolved through the manipulation of texts during the early history of the church.
  
  Beginning with what he labels Exaltation Christologies, Ehrman argues it was a belief in the resurrection of Jesus—based on visionary experiences—that initially led followers to believe Jesus had risen to heaven to sit at the right hand of God as his Son. This transitions to the Incarnation Christologies, the view that Jesus was not a human who was raised to the level of divinity but was a preexistent divine being with God before he came to earth as a human. Ehrman then traces the development of these various Christologies, their offshoots, their arguments and conclusions, their leading proponents and opponents. Aspects of some Christologies later evolved into what is now considered the orthodox (“right”) line while others were deemed “heresies” (false). Ehrman shows how inconsistencies and contradictions in the Gospels and in the writings of Paul are addressed by later theologians who selectively focused on different sections of a text in an attempt to reconcile inconsistencies, support their theology, and arrive at what they deemed to be a more coherent doctrine.
  
  Ehrman provides ample textual evidence for his argument. His extensive research and knowledge of the material is impressive. He examines each assumption by placing it in its historical, cultural, and textual context to determine the likelihood of its actual occurrence. By doing so, he calls into question many of the basic tenets of today’s Christianity. He eschews theological debates and is careful to state at the outset that he is not taking a position on the question of Jesus’ divinity. As he says, “I do not take a stand on the theological question of Jesus’ divine status. I am instead interested in the historical development that led to the affirmation that he is God.”
  
  This is a fascinating, well-researched, and thoroughly documented study. The language is engaging and accessible with touches of humor throughout. It is highly recommended for those interested in biblical research and in the historical development of Christianity.
  
  My book reviews are also available at
  www.tamaraaghajaffar.com
• 
  Edward

  I enjoyed How Jesus became God more than several of Ehrman's other books, probably for the reason that I find the underlying question most interesting. In the early chapters, Ehrman steps a little outside his main area of expertise and explores the Jewish and Roman cultural environments, which surrounded the genesis and dissemination of the early Christian church. I found the second chapter about early Judaism particularly interesting - I would love to read a book (I don't know of any that exists, and I'm open to recommendations) devoted to examining the development of the early Jewish religion from henotheism to monotheism (as an aside, it always strikes me as interesting, just how compelled in general humans seem to be in the opposite direction. Even in the ostensibly monotheistic religions there is always a multitude of other deities, even if they are not acknowledged as such - Satan, saints, prophets, angels, demons, djinns - something resembling polytheism seems always to evolve. Given the range of lesser deities, the actual theological distinction between a presumed monotheism like Christianity and an explicit polytheistic religion is quite difficult to define).
  
  After the first couple of chapters, Ehrman returns to the familiar world of New Testament textual analysis, and the history of the early church. He does retread some old paths here, but his overall thesis of the likely means of Jesus' exultation to God is credible and interesting. While I do have some criticisms of Ehrman's style, I find that his passion towards the subject, and his commitment to historical accuracy, predictably results in books that are both compelling and informative.
• 
  Barbara

  I listened to the Audible version of How Jesus Became God a while ago. It’s been difficult for me to figure out how to review it. I thought Walter Dixon was a convincing narrator for this book. I could imagine the author speaking in the same tone. The book was well written. I really wanted to like the How Jesus Became God because I believe its premise. However, I wish that Ehrman had used something other than Biblical verses and Biblical history to support his claims. I was familiar with much of his source material and understood what he was trying to say, but I wanted to hear validation outside of the realm of religion. Maybe that was unrealistic, given that it was a book on religious beliefs. Living in 2014 and in the era of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, I guess I wanted more. Perhaps I just wasn’t looking in the right place. From my perspective, How Jesus Became God was a good audio book, but a disappointment.
• 
  Ziyad Hasanin

  أول تجربة قراءة للبروفيسور بارت إرمان، واول تجربة لكتاب صوتي.
  
  بارت إرمان باحث وبروفيسور ومفكر عبقري، وأسلوبه في ربط المعلومات والاستدلال على أفكاره وموسوعيته التاريخية بالإضافة إلى منهجه التاريخي الرصين وأسلوبه اللاذع والسلس تجعل الخصم قبل الصديق يقر له بقوة الحجة والموضوعية والبراعة التي قلما تجدها عند كثير ممن يتعرض للبحث في نطاق الأديان لا سيما في منطقتنا التعيسة.
  
  يتحدث في هذا الكتاب عن لغز ديني تاريخي كبير، كيف تحول يسوع الناصري إلى إله في نظر حوارييه وأتباعه؟ وينطلق للإجابة عن هذا اللغز من منظور تاريخي راق لي بشكل لا يمكن وصفه.
  
  مبدأيًا يلفت إرمان النظر إلى قضية مهمة جدًا وهي التعريفات: هل كان أتباع المسيح يرونه مقدسًا\إلهيًا؟ بالطبع. لكن النقطة المحورية التي يرتكز عليها في مقدمة طرحه هي أن البشر في حقبة ما قبل الأديان الإبراهيمية كان لديهم تصور مختلف عما هو بشري وما هو إلهي فلم يكن هذان نطاقين منفصلين بل هما أشبه بالطيف الذي يمكن للكائنات التحرك فيه صعودًا (تألهًا) وهبوطًأ (تدنسًا).
  وهنا أحب التنويه إلى شيء لفت انتباهي كثيرًا عن القراءة في التاريخ، وهي أننا نجعل البشر يفكرون بنفس طريقتنا الحالية ونحاكمهم بنفس تصوراتنا، في حين أن معرفة كيف كان يفكر البشر وكيف كان تصورهم عن العالم والتاريخ والوجود أصلًا يختلف تمام الاختلاف من عصر إلى عصر، نحن فقط من نسقط تصوراتنا التاريخية الاعتباطية ونتخيل أن كل من سلف يفكر كما نفكر.
  
  المهم، يحاول إرمان من خلال استعراض تاريخ الأديان القديمة بالأخص في الامبراطورية الرومانية بل ومن بعض نصوص التوراة أن يثبت كيف أن الناس كانوا يتقبلون فكرة أن يتأله أحد البشر (مثل هركليز\هرقل) أو أن يتجسد الآلهة في العالم البشري (كما مع آلهة الرومان) وهو تصور استمر مع الامبراطورية الرومانية التي نشأ فيها المسيح. مما هيّأ الجو والفكر الديني العام (وفي نظر إرمان فالمسيح كان بشرًا ابن عصره وتصورات عصره) تهيأ سكان العالم القديم لتحويل يسوع من رسول يبشر بنهاية العالم إلى الله الخالق الأول الآخر، الأمر الذي تم -وهذه النقطة المحورية- لا في البيئة اليهودية في فلسطين بل في البيئة اليونانية الرومانية.
  ويجدر هنا التنويه إلى طرح المستشار عبد الجواد ياسين (وغيره ربما) أن المسيحية هي لاهوت عبري في سياق روماني، والشيء بالشيء يذكر هذا الكتاب يدفع للتفكر في الكثير من التراث الإسلامي بالفعل
  
  يحاول إرمان أيضًا وضع فرضية أخرى ليسوع الناصري، هل كان بالفعل ابن الله؟ هل كان دجالًا؟ يخلص إرمان من تحليل طويل لا يخلو من المتعة والتشويق والتفكر ليخلص إلى أن يسوعًا كان نبيًا يبشر بنهاية العالم التي ستأتي في حياته هو شخصيًا، حين سيحل عذاب الله ويحاسب الأشرار والظالمين وتقوم مملكة الرب في العالم، والتي سيكون هو حاكمها. كان يسوع يظن أنه هو المسيح الذي سيحكم مملكة الله وهذا ما كان يبشر به وينذر نهاية العالم التي هي كلمح البصر أو هي أقرب.
  
  كان المسيح في الديانة والفكر اليهودي شخصًا يحكم مملكة الله ويأتي بأمر الله ليحاسب الناس ويقيم العدل، وبالتالي كان صلب يسوع صدمة كبيرة لأتباعه إذ أن صفات يسوع (الذي قُتل شر قتله من أعداءه) تتنافى تمامًا مع صفات المسيح المنتظر. هنا يلفت إرمان نظر القارئ إلى أن دعوة المسيح ونبوته وصلبه لم يكن ما أشاع الديانة المسيحية، بل كان ما قدح زناد انتشارها هو عقيدة قيامته من الموت. العقيدة التي بنيت على شهادات عدة (قد يرى الكثيرون أنها لا تكفي للتدليل على حدث كوني عظيم هذا) ولكنها كانت كفيلة بقيام ديانة جديدة من رحم اليهودية. يناقش إرمان أيضًا العديد من الإشكاليات حول عقيدة قيامة المسيح منها أن المصلوبين في الامبراطورية الرومانية لم يحصلوا -فيما لدينا من وثائق وشهادات تاريخية- على دفن يليق بهم بل كان الموت على يد الطيور الجارحة جزءًا من العقوبة، وبالتالي من المستبعد أن يكون المسيح قد تلقى دفنًا كريمًا بعد صلبه.
  
  من الاقتباسات التي أحببتها بشدة في هذا الفصل هو قول إرمان:
  من السهل جدًا حين يعتقد أحدهم أن معجزات تراثنا الفكري\الديني لا يمكن إثباتها تاريخيًا أن نصرخ "هذا تحيز [مادي] ضد الغيبيات"، لكن من الصعب الإقرار بأن معجزات التقاليد الأخرى يمكن بنفس الدرجة من السهولة الاستدلال عليها."
  
  كانت صدمة أتباع المسيح الدافع الذي جعلهم يؤمنون أنه رفع إلى جنب الله وأنه سيأتي في نهاية التاريخ ليحكم مملكة الله من جديد، بالطبع يفصل الكاتب هذه النقطة على مدار أكثر من فصل، وكيف كان هذا التطور يحدث خلال عشرات من السنوات، عكس ما قد يتصوره البعض من أن المسيحية "حرفت" بعد مدة زمنية طويلة. كان الدافع الرئيس لتطور لاهوت المسيحية هو التوفيق بين النظرة التوحيدية وبين قيامة المسيح.
  
  يناقش إرمان أيضًا تبعات هذا التطور ومراحله بدايةًا برسالات بولس وبطرس ومرورًا بالأناجيل الاربعة ويبدأ رحلة التاريخ حتى يصل إلى مجمع نيقية والذي حسب الكاتب حسم عقيدة التثليث لا قضية ألوهية المسيح التي لم يكن حولها جدال حينها.
  
  تعليقات أخيرة:
  1- منهج بارت إرمان التاريخي عبقري، وأنا أميل لتطبيقه عامةً حتى على التراث الإسلامي، لكن بالطبع الموضوع بحاجة إلى دراسة معمقة أكثر.
  2- كم أتمنى أن أجد من هو شبيه ببارت إرمان في سياق الدراسات التاريخية الإسلامية. شخص يتطور فكريًا وتنضج أفكاره في كتبه لا شخص يعتقد ثم يستدل ويدمغ كل ما يخالفه بانه لم يأت بجديد وبيرد شبهات.
  3- الكتاب ده زاد قناعتي، إننا بنتخانق ونموت بعض ونبدع ونهرطق ونكفر ناس تانية عشان خاطر ناس قالت وفكرت واتخانقت وكتبت من 1000 سنة، واحنا بنحاسب على المشاريب لحد دلوقتي
• 
  Avery

  In my opinion this is Ehrman’s most interesting book. Here, he tries to explain exactly how the New Testament could have arisen in a world in which Jesus was just a man. This includes an extensive discussion of the empty tomb and the Resurrection.
  
  The entire book is very well-written, aware of recent scholarship, and interesting material, but towards the end of the book it's evident that he has a hard time of it. In fact, speaking as a non-Christian, this book makes a kind of fascinating case for belief.
  
  When Ehrman says that Jesus' male disciples likely fled Jerusalem after his crucifixion and returned to Galilee, while women stayed behind, this seems like a quite plausible explanation for discrepancies in the Gospel accounts, as well as famous passages like Peter denying Christ. When Ehrman says that Jesus was probably not buried in a tomb but was eaten by dogs, this sounds horrific but at least historically justifiable. But when he says that all accounts of meeting the risen Christ in the flesh were simply fabricated as one side of a theological dispute, this seems not only a poor interpretation of the evidence, but also fairly unbelievable to this non-Christian observer. He provides plenty of evidence of pre-Christian "godmen," but no such amazing story like this that the Gospel authors could have relied upon. What the Gospels record is that someone -- it could be anyone in the early Christian community -- sat down to record the stories of their community and came up with something entirely new to the Roman world.
  
  Ehrman quotes pre-Pauline saying found in the letters of Paul, which is absolutely fascinating, very convincing, and exciting reading. But an interesting thing about these pre-Pauline writings is that they are already endorsing a lyrical miracle of the risen Christ which would not sound out of place in a modern church. They seem to buttress the divine love and witness found in Paul’s letters, rather than undermining them. They make it easy to understand why Christianity spread so rapidly.
• 
  Michael Carlson

  I cannot recommend this book. While Ehrman's research is solid, his constant agenda of wanting to shock what he obviously thinks are naive and stupid believers is offensive and underhanded.
  One example. Ehrman writes: "I sometimes give my students an assignment to read through all of Paul’s writings and list everything Paul indicates Jesus said and did. My students are surprised to find that they don’t even need a three-by-five card to list them. (Paul, by the way, never says that Jesus declared himself to be divine.)"
  This may be technically true but it is grossly misleading. It takes a very careful reader to understand both what Ehrman is--and isn't--saying. What he's saying is that Paul seldom if ever writes or says, "Jesus said such-and-such." In particular, Paul never says, "Jesus said he was the Son of God."
  In this, Ehrman is correct. But he deceives his reader into thinking that Paul seldom or ever says that he, Paul, believes that Jesus is the Son of God.
  In fact, Paul says this in paragraph after paragraph. But Ehrman doesn't bother to say this!
  I do not recommend this book to anyone, in any circumstance. If you're interested in the topic, read John and Adela Collins' King and Messiah as Son of God.
• 
  Kaethe

  Not a book I can imagine having broad appeal. I'm an Ehrman fan, I think he does an amazing job of explaining the science of the history of the bible. And I also enjoy reading about ecclesiastical history. This book follows the progression of the idea of Jesus over time, from the earliest believers who called him teacher and knew him as a fairly normal apocalyptic preacher through the early years of Christianity and into orthodoxies and heresies, ending with the creed that Jesus is both fully human (and thus, mortal) and also fully God (and thus, immortal) at the SAME TIME. If you aren't especially interested in the minutia of religious debate and/or the politics involved in choosing which beliefs to incorporate and which to denounce, then this isn't for you. All of Ehrman's books are excellent, mind, I'm just saying some have greater mass appeal (heh).
  
  This is another one of the spring break books that Veronica and I ended up sharing, because not enough strength to carry all the books one wants to read over a few days.
  
  Library copy