This isn’t contemporary news given that Ehrman authored his article nearly four years ago. But for anyone who has enjoyed and/or engaged some of Ehrman’s thoughts this is worth reading.
A first step would be to acknowledge Professor Ehrman’s beliefs, especially for readers who are largely unfamiliar with him. Ehrman, a New Testament scholar and distinguished professor of Religious Studies, is an agnostic with atheist leanings. He openly states in a number of his books that he does not believe that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and that Christ was in way or form God incarnate. Ehrman is thus arguably one of the leading informed critics of the Christian religion within the professional academy. He is also skeptical, much in the same way to David Hume, about miracles and whether or not we can even know if a miracle occurred within ancient history. With Ehrman one isn’t dealing with an ally to Christianity or an individual who is open to agreeing with orthodox Christian views.
This backstory gives some value to Ehrman’s blog article. Why? Simply because it has been Christians who have maintained that the gospel accounts present Christ as a divine figure and as God incarnate. Many skeptics, however, would disagree, and argue that the synoptics (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) do not present Christ in this way. They will often argue that only John’s gospel portrays Christ in such a way and that one should expect this because John’s gospel is the latest. Due to John being the latest it unsurprisingly evidences much embellishment. This, one might argue, is because John’s author embellished the core facts of the historical Christ in such a way as to present him as a divine figure. But Ehrman now disagrees. He admits that Christ’s divinity is presented throughout all four the gospel accounts including John. This is a view he did not initially hold. According to Ehrman,
“Until a year ago I would have said – and frequently did say, in the classroom, in public lectures, and in my writings – that Jesus is portrayed as God in the Gospel of John but not, definitely not, in the other Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I would point out that only in John did Jesus say such things as “Before Abraham, I am” (8:58; taking upon himself the name of God, as given to Moses in Exodus 3); his Jewish opponents knew full well what he was saying: they take up stones to stone him. Later he says “I and the Father are one” (10:30). Again, the Jews break out the stones. Later he tells his disciples, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (14:9). And in a later prayer to God he asks him to “glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world was created” (17:5). None of these sayings, or anything like them, can be found in the other canonical Gospels. Jesus is clearly portrayed as a divine being in John, but only in John (I would have argued).“
Ehrman’s “big” change of mind occurred while he was doing the research for his book How Jesus Became God. Traditionally Christians, and Christian apologists, would have attributed things like Christ’s act of forgiving sins, his ability to perform miracles, and accepting those who worshiped him as pointers suggesting that he was more than a mortal man, and thus God himself. After all, who other than God has permission to forgive sins? However, Ehrman argues these alone are not convincing proof for that proposition. These “are completely compatible with human, not just divine, authority… none of these things, in and of itself, indicates clearly that Jesus is divine.” (one is free to visit Ehrman’s article as linked above to read his justification of these views). Yet when all of this is taken together, pens Ehrman,
“One could argue that the three things taken together as a group makes a stronger case for Jesus’ divinity: Jesus has the role of prophet, priest, and king – not just one thing or the other. And together these things suggest he is something more than human.”
It would seem that there were two main things that changed Ehrman’s mind,
“in doing my research and thinking harder and harder about the issue, when I (a) came to realize that the Gospels not only attributed these things to him, but also understood him to be adopted as the Son of God at his baptism (Mark 1:9-11), or to have been made the son of God by virtue of the fact that God was literally his father, in that it was the Spirit of God that made the virgin Mary pregnant (Luke 1:35), and (b) realized what “adoption” meant to people in the Roman world (as indicated in a previous post), I finally yielded. These Gospels do indeed think of Jesus as divine. Being made the very Son of God who can heal, cast out demons, raise the dead, pronounce divine forgiveness, receive worship together suggests that even for these Gospels Jesus was a divine being, not merely a human… But in a different sense from John.”
Ehrman explains that each of the gospel accounts represent the divinity of Christ in different ways. As such, should one ask the question as to in what sense is Jesus God, the gospels will differ in their answers,
“John’s sense is different from Mark’s and Mark’s is different from Luke’s and Luke’s is different from Paul’s and so on. 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 – the Word of God who was both with God and was God at the beginning of all things – who became a human. 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).”
“So yes, now I agree that Jesus is portrayed as a divine being, a God-man, in all the Gospels. But in very different ways, depending on which Gospel you read.”