Explore the comprehensive analysis and rebuttal to Bart D. Ehrman’s assertion that Jesus never identified Himself as a Divine Being. This article utilizes historical and grammatical methods, focusing on Christ’s identity through a detailed examination of the Scriptures.

Ehrman’s Article: Does Jesus Call Himself God in His Trial Before the Sanhedrin and the High Priest Caiaphas?

Let’s analyze key points in the article and provide a response from a conservative Bible scholar’s perspective.

1. Jesus Never Calls Himself God in the Synoptic Gospels

Ehrman asserts that Jesus never calls Himself divine in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. He considers the trial before the Sanhedrin in Mark 14:53-62 as the main point of contention.

Response: Ehrman fails to consider the way Jesus refers to Himself as the “Son of Man” in the Synoptic Gospels. Jesus uses this title from Daniel 7:13-14, which is understood to refer to a divine figure with authority and dominion. In Matthew 26:64 (ESV), Jesus says, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” This statement, while not a direct claim to be God, certainly points to His unique divine authority and relationship with God.

2. Historical Analysis of Jesus’ Divinity

Ehrman argues that the Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus as divine is a later theological development.

Response: This argument overlooks the consistency and early dating of New Testament texts that present Jesus as divine. Paul’s epistles (e.g., Philippians 2:5-11), which date from to about 60-61 C.E., explicitly affirm Jesus’ divinity. Also, Mark’s Gospel, written around 65 C.E., contains implicit claims to Jesus’ divine nature, such as His authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-12). Matthew dates to about 45-50 C.E. Luke dates to about 56-58 C.E.

3. The Historicity of the Trial Before the Sanhedrin

Ehrman questions the historical accuracy of the trial, pointing to alleged inconsistencies and improbable circumstances.

Response: While Ehrman raises valid historical inquiries, his assumptions regarding the illegality and improbability of the trial are speculative. The Gospels present the trial as an unjust and irregular process driven by the leaders’ desire to eliminate Jesus. Mark’s account could be based on the testimony of witnesses like Peter, who may have had access to the proceedings through connections like John’s with the high priest’s household (John 18:15-16).

4. The Charge of Blasphemy

Ehrman contends that Jesus’ statements during the trial would not have been considered blasphemous.

Response: Ehrman fails to recognize the broader context of Jesus’ ministry and His consistent identification with the divine. The high priest’s reaction could be seen as a culmination of growing antagonism towards Jesus’ actions and teachings, which challenged the religious authorities. The title “Son of Man” and the claim to sit at God’s right hand (a place of honor and authority) may have been interpreted as a claim to equality with God, hence the charge of blasphemy.

5. The Evolution of the “Son of Man” Concept

Ehrman suggests that the understanding of Jesus as the “Son of Man” evolved after His death.

Response: The concept of the “Son of Man” is consistent throughout the Gospels, and there is no evidence of a significant shift in understanding over time. Furthermore, Jesus’ earliest followers were Jews who understood the messianic implications of the term. It is unlikely that they would have redefined this concept without a clear foundation in Jesus’ own teachings.

I will point out areas of concern and disagreement with Ehrman’s interpretation and provide counter-arguments.

Historical Doubt About the Sanhedrin Trial: Ehrman casts doubt on the historicity of the trial before the Sanhedrin, arguing that the meeting would have been improbable during Passover and that there were illegalities in the proceedings. However, the desperation to address Jesus’ influence and potential threat to the status quo could indeed lead to an extraordinary and irregular meeting. The Scriptures provide a historically accurate portrayal of the events.

Claiming No Blasphemy in Jesus’ Words: Ehrman argues that there was no blasphemy in Jesus’ affirmation of being the Messiah, the Son of God, or in his reference to the “Son of Man” coming on the clouds. From a conservative Christian perspective, this argument overlooks the understanding of the Messiah in Jesus’ time and the claims he was making. Jesus was not simply claiming to be a political figure; he was claiming an intimate relationship with Jehovah, unique authority, and a role in the divine judgment. His claim to be seated at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven (Mark 14:62, ESV) would indeed have been understood as a claim to a divine status.

Ehrman’s Separation of Mark’s Theology from Historical Context: Ehrman separates the context of Mark’s Gospel from history, arguing that the high priest appears to understand Mark’s theology but not historical reality. However, conservative scholars maintain that the Gospel of Mark presents a historically accurate account. The high priest’s reaction to Jesus’ claim is consistent with how it would have been understood in the context of Jewish monotheism.

Emphasis on Literary and Historical Analysis: Ehrman emphasizes the distinction between literary and historical analysis, claiming that the Gospels are influenced by later theological developments. This approach disregards the conviction of conservative Christian scholars that the Gospels are inspired by the Spirit of God and provides a reliable historical record. The Gospel of Mark is not merely a theological construct but a faithful testimony to Jesus’ life, teachings, death, and resurrection.

Quotes from Ehrman’s Article that are Historically Inaccurate

• Ehrman: “The entire episode seems dubious on historical grounds. Are we supposed to think there was a meeting of the entire Sanhedrin (as Mark says) on the day of Passover? How is that to work exactly? All these pious Jewish leaders are having their Passover meals but then excuse themselves for an important meeting to condemn an otherwise unknown figure who has come into town for the week? That couldn’t wait till the next day?”

RESPONSE: This is a common objection to the historicity of the trial of Jesus, but it is not a valid one. The Sanhedrin could and did meet on the day of Passover, and there is no reason to think that they would not have met to deal with a serious matter such as the arrest and interrogation of a man they believed was a messianic pretender.

• Ehrman: “Mark reports that the trial was held before the entire Sanhedrin and other top level Jewish leaders. If so, where did Mark find out – forty years later – exactly what happened and exactly what was said? There were no stenographers there. None of Jesus’ followers was there: How can we possibly know what the high priest said and what Jesus replied, even if there was a trial?”

RESPONSE: This is a valid question, but it does not mean that the trial of Jesus did not happen. Mark had access to eyewitness testimony and he was able to reconstruct the events based on other sources. When Jesus was arrested at Gethsemane, causing the apostles to flee, He was trailed by “a certain young man wearing a fine linen garment over his naked body.” As the crowd tried to apprehend him as well, he abandoned his linen garment and escaped naked. Most believe this young man to be Mark, identified in Acts as “John who was surnamed Mark.” Mark may have come from a well-off family in Jerusalem, with their own house and servants. His mother, Mary, was a Christian, and their home served as a meeting place for the early church. The missionary Barnabas, who was Mark’s cousin, came from Cyprus (Acts 4:36; Col. 4:10). When Barnabas arrived in Jerusalem with Paul for famine relief, Mark became acquainted with Paul, later joining him and Barnabas on their first missionary journey. Mark made a valuable contribution to the ministry, assisting not only Barnabas but also the apostles Peter and Paul. The shortest of the Gospels is attributed to Mark, who committed his life to the service of the Gospel. Though not one of the 12 apostles and not a direct companion of Jesus, Mark’s intimate details in his Gospel offer a vivid portrayal of Jesus’ ministry. Scholars like Papias, Origen, and Tertullian attribute this insight to Peter, whom Mark was close to, and who referred to him as “my son” (1 Pet. 5:13). Peter witnessed nearly all events Mark recorded and likely shared with Mark unique details found in his Gospel, such as the “hired men” working for Zebedee (Mark 1:20), the leper imploring Jesus “on bended knee” (Mark 1:40), the demonized man “slashing himself with stones” (Mark 5:5), and Jesus giving prophecy about His coming “with great power and glory” on the Mount of Olives “with the temple in view” (Mark 13:3, 26). Peter, a man of profound emotion, might have described to Mark the feelings of Jesus. Mark often depicts Jesus’ emotions, like when He “looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart” (Mark 3:5), “sighed deeply” (Mark 7:34; 8:12), or “showed love to” the rich young ruler (Mark 10:21). Mark’s account includes the warmth of Jesus “taking” a young child “in his arms” (Mark 9:36), and His blessing of the children (Mark 10:13-16). Mark’s writing style, lively and vivid, reflects some of Peter’s characteristics. He seems to write with urgency, using the word “immediately” repeatedly, adding to the dramatic narrative.

• Ehrman: “The high priest places Jesus under a vow to declare whether he really is “the messiah, the Son of the Blessed” (that is, the Son of God). Jesus replies “I am. Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power’ and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’” The high priest immediately tears his clothes and declares that Jesus has committed a blasphemy. The entire Sanhedrin condemns him and declares that he deserves to die.”

Ehrman argues that Jesus’ statement “I am” is not a blasphemy, because it was a common way to say “yes.” However, this is not the only way to interpret Jesus’ statement. It could also be interpreted as a claim to be God, which would be a blasphemy according to Jewish law.

• Ehrman: “Would it be blasphemous for Jesus to say that he is the messiah? Of course not. The “messiah” was commonly understood to be the human whom God would raise up, as he did with David of old, to become the king of Israel, the “anointed” one (= meshiach in Hebrew; christos in Greek). Claiming to be God’s anointed one, in the Hebrew Bible, in early Judaism, or in later Judaism was never a blasphemy.”

This is also a valid point. The title “messiah” does not necessarily mean that someone is claiming to be God. However, it is important to note that the Jews of Jesus’ day had a variety of different beliefs about the Messiah. Some believed that the Messiah would be a human king, while others believed that he would be a divine figure. It is possible that Jesus’ statement “I am” was intended to convey the latter belief.

Conservative Bible Scholar Rebuttal

In conclusion, while Ehrman raises some valid points, his article does not provide a convincing argument against the historicity of the trial of Jesus. The evidence suggests that the trial did happen and that Jesus was indeed charged with blasphemy.

In addition to the points raised above, here are some other things to consider:

• The Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote in the first century C.E., also mentions the trial of Jesus. He does not provide as much detail as Mark does, but he does confirm that Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin and condemned to death.
• The early Christian church also believed that Jesus was tried and executed by the Sanhedrin. This belief is reflected in the writings of the New Testament, as well as in the early Christian creeds.

Conclusion

While Dr. Ehrman raises some interesting points, his arguments often rest on assumptions and speculative interpretations. A careful examination of the New Testament and early Jewish and Christian literature shows a consistent and early understanding of Jesus’ unique divine status. The Gospel accounts, including Mark’s account of the trial, reflect this understanding and provide valuable historical insights into the life and teachings of Jesus. It is essential to approach the Gospels with an awareness of their theological intentions but also with a commitment to the Historical-Grammatical method, respecting the texts’ integrity and historical context.

Ehrman’s analysis tends to separate the theological content of the Gospels from historical reality. This approach undermines the trustworthiness and integrity of the Scriptural accounts. It dismisses the profound claims Jesus made about himself and his mission, which were indeed understood by his contemporaries as blasphemous within their religious context. His rejection of key events like the trial before the Sanhedrin fails to account for the complex and urgent historical circumstances surrounding Jesus’ arrest and trial. The understanding of the Scriptures in this response is rooted in the objective Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation, emphasizing the historical reliability and theological unity of the biblical text.

About the Author

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION