Note: This is the second installment of a series of blog posts reviewing Bart Ehrman’s new book, How Jesus Became God–The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (HarperOne, 2014). For the prior post see here.
Ehrman’s core argument is that Jesus was a mere man who gradually, over time, came to be regarded as more and more divine, until he was ultimately (in the fourth century) regarded as the God of the universe. He states, “It will become clear in the following chapters that Jesus was not originally considered to be God in any sense at all, and that he eventually became divine for his followers in some sense before he came to be thought of as equal with God Almighty in an absolute sense. But the point I stress is that this was, in fact, a development” (44).
In other words, Ehrman argues that the earliest Christians did not understand divinity as something that was “all or nothing”–it could have gradations.
It is no surprise, therefore, that Ehrman begins his volume with a discussion of “gods” and semi-divine beings in the Greco-Roman world because this was a world which clearly did view divinity as something that could have degrees. The problem with such a starting place, however, is that the earliest Christology was not born in a Greco-Roman context, but in a decidedly Jewish one. Indeed, it was born into a Jewish world which was concretely monotheistic. And in a monotheistic Jewish world, there are no “half-way” gods.
How, then, does Ehrman avoid this obvious problem for his thesis? Richard Bauckham in his book Jesus and the God of Israel (Eerdmans, 2008), though not responding directly to Ehrman, describes Ehrman’s kind of approach precisely:
Much of the clear evidence for the ways in which Second Temple Judaism understood the uniqueness of God has been neglected in favour of a small amount of highly debatable evidence. Intermediary figures who may or may not participate in divinity are by no means characteristic of the literature of Second Temple Judaism (5). . . Methodologically, it is imperative to proceed from the clear consensus of Second Temple monotheism to the more ambiguous evidence about so-called intermediary figures. (13).
Ehrman commits the very fallacy that Bauckham describes—he highlights the limited number of ambiguous or debatable passages about supposed semi-divine figures and uses those instances to override the larger and more established monotheistic trends in first-century Judaism. The problem, of course, is that even if his interpretation of these passages is correct (and that is questionable), these passages at best represent only the minority report. And why should we think the earliest Christians held this fringe/minority view of divinity when they formulated their ideas about the identity of Jesus? Or for that matter, why should we think Jesus himself held these minority views when he expressed his own identity?
Each of Ehrman’s examples of supposed semi-divine figures cannot be addressed here, but he bases his argument primarily on angels, particularly the mysterious “angel of the Lord” phenomenon in the OT. However, the idea that early Christians saw Jesus in the category of an angel runs contrary to numerous other lines of evidence. For one, Jesus is clearly distinguished from the angels (Mark 1:13; Matt 4:11), given Lordship over the angels (Matt 4:6, 26:53; Luke 4:10; Mark 13:27), and exalted in a place above the angels (Heb 1:5, 13). In addition, Jesus is accorded both worship (Matt 28:17; Luke 24:52) and the role of creator (1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Phil 2:10-11)—two key marks of God’s unique divine identity within Judaism—whereas angels are never portrayed as creating the world, nor as worthy of worship (Col 2:18; Rev 19:10, 22:9).
Ehrman attempts to overcome these clear restrictions on angel worship by flipping them around to his advantage: “We know that some Jews thought that it was right to worship angels in no small part because a number of our surviving texts insist that it not be done. You don’t get laws prohibiting activities that are never performed” (54-55, emphasis his).
Yes, you don’t get laws prohibiting activities that are never performed; but at the same time you can’t use laws prohibiting activities as evidence that those activities actually represent a religion’s views! It would be like using the Ten Commandments (which are filled with prohibitions) to argue that ancient Judaism was a religion that embraced idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, adultery, murder, coveting, and so on.
Again, Ehrman is using what is, at best, a condemned and fringe activity (angel worship) as characteristic of first-century Judaism.That simply doesn’t work as a model for how early (Jewish) Christians would have viewed Jesus.
Grant says
A good post, Dr. Kruger, thank you.
It seems Bart Ehrman, like many other liberal scholars, isn’t too concerned with his views receiving this kind of scrutiny, as if the ends will justify the means.
It seems a bit silly for him to try make a case from prohibition, but its good to remember he is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. Its a sobering thing to consider.
I am really enjoying your blog, Dr. Kruger, I’m thankful I found it.
hebrewsdnt says
Dr. Kruger,
I found your blog from James White’s blog. If you have time, I was wondering if you could address this idea that Paul had an angel christology on the basis of Galatians 4:14, because it is central even to Ehrman’s understanding of Philippians 2. Ehrman seems to take αγγελος there to mean “angel,” but that doesn’t seem to me to be at all certain. The context is Paul preaching the gospel to the Galatians:
Galatians 4:12-14 I beg of you, brethren, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You have done me no wrong; 13 but you know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time; 14 and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself.
The issue seems the fact that Paul preached the gospel to the Galatians, and they did not receive him as some mere trite madman, but as a person who was a messenger carrying a message from God, even as Jesus Christ himself who was also a messenger from God. If αγγελος meant the simple “messenger,” it would seem to provide a consistent contextual interpretation of the passage that does not require us to believe that Paul believed Jesus was an angel.
The syntactical issues Ehrman raises are also interesting, because it doesn’t seem like the alleged parallels he raises to Galatians 4:14 are, in fact, syntactically parallel. Dr. White even noticed the same thing in his review of Ehrman on his program. For example:
Galatians 4:14: ως αγγελον θεου εδεξασθε με, ως Χριστον Ιησουν
2 Corinthians 2:17 αλλ’ ως εξ ειλικρινειας, αλλ’ ως εκ θεου κατεναντι θεου εν Χριστω λαλουμεν
1 Corinthians 3:1 καγω αδελφοι ουκ ηδθνηθην λαλησαι υμιν ως πνευματικοις αλλ’ ως σαρκινιος, ως νηπιοις εν Χριστω.
The syntax for 2 Corinthians 2:17 appears to be this:
[[AdvPως][AdvPως] VP]
While the syntax to 1 Corinthians 3:1 appears to be:
[VP [AdvPως] [AdvPως]]
And the syntax of Galatians 4:14 appears to be this:
[[AdvPως]1[VP] [AdvPως][t1]]
While that might seem a bit picky, in both 1 Corinthians 3:1 and in 2 Corinthians 2:17, the two AdvP’s are adjacent to one another with the VP either coming at the before or after the two adjacent AdvP’s, while in our text in Galatians 4:14, the two AdvP are split apart by the VP. This might be significant, especially since all of the languages I have studied usually express apposition by juxtaposing the two clauses right next to each other with no intervening clause. That may mean that further apposition is not intended at all, in which case, the meaning of αγγελος would be a mute point. Just curious as to your take on this passage and Ehrman’s use of it.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III says
Dr. Kruger,
It would seem that knowledge of Acts 14:8-20 especially 11-18. A man of Lystra is healed and the residents thought that Barnabas and Paul were Zeus and Hermes (respectively): “The gods have come down to us in human form!” (NIV; “likeness of men” KJV and Greek). Barnabas and Paul both cried out against this and claimed that they were men as the people were. Whether one goes with the North Galatian or South Galatian theory as to when Galatians was written makes not difference here since Lystra was clearly in Galatia.
The issue as to whether αγγελος is to be translated as “messenger” or “angel” would depend on the historical, linguistic, cultural and religious (traditional) contexts that one wishes to emphasize. I think with the use of αγγελος in 1:6, 8 with reference to another gospel that “angel” would be the correct use 4:14; although, a pun could be used playing on the meaning of αγγελος as messenger and angel.
In Christ,
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III