Should orthodoxy listen to historical Jesus scholarship?

[Elijah John]

A quote from Bart Ehrman:

Historians of the Gospels have long concluded that the idea that Jesus called himself God is not historical. If it were, it would be in the earliest Gospels; this is a view that is distinctive to John, the last of the Gospels to be written.

For debate, what place if any should the conclusions of historical Jesus scholarship have in orthodox Christian theology or liturgy? Is it time to revise the Creeds?

[Overcomer]

Elijah John wrote:

For debate, what place if any should the conclusions of historical Jesus scholarship have in orthodox Christian theology or liturgy? Is it time to revise the Creeds?

You make it sound like all historical Jesus scholarship agrees with Bart Ehrman that Jesus is not God when, in reality, the majority of said scholarship argues cogently and persuasively that he is. Contemporary scholars who hold to the deity of Jesus Christ include:

Dan Wallace
Darrell Bock
Richard Bauckham
Craig Blomberg
Craig Evans
Michael Brown
Michael Licona
Gordon Fee
Michael Kruger
Robert Bowman
D. A. Carson
Gary Habermas
F. F. Bruce
Andreas Kostenberger
R.C. Sproul
Alister McGrath
Leon Morris
James Edwards
William Barclay
Craig Keener
Doug Groothuis
Scott McKnight
R. T. France
Victor Shepherd

And those are only a few of the ones I have studied and/or taken courses from. There are many, many, MANY more. They far outnumber the nay-sayers.

And then there were the early church fathers who accepted Jesus as God Incarnate including Ignatius (30 to 107 A.D.), Justin Martyr (110 to 165 A.D), Irenaeus (120 to 202 A.D.) as well as Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and Augustine and more.

So Ehrman's conclusions are NOT the conclusions of everyone involved in the study of Jesus and it is erroneous to suggest that they are.

As to your question re: their place, here's the good that ALL heretics do. They challenge everyone to think deeply about what they believe, why they believe it and whether it's a belief they need to hang on to, alter or dismiss. And then, knowing the truth, they learn how to communicate it to others, making sure that those who might be misled by heresies are able to assess and reject them. That's what challenges to the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ did when Athanasius took on the heresy of Arius in the fourth century and that's what challenges to the Trinity and Christ as God Incarnate do today as scholars like those I named address them.

[Eloi]

I think this topic has a lot of sense ... It is not about how many scholars thinks Jesus is God or the reasons they suppose supports their belief, but about why Bart Ehrman have concluded Jesus is not God. The reason he uses is that in the sinoptic gospels there is not one single verse saying that was a Jesus' teaching and John writings are very late compared to those.

I, in particular, do not consider that John has either contemplated in his writings the idea that Jesus is GOD, despite how late his writings may be compared to the three synoptic gospels. However, I consider Mr. Ehrman's idea to be very reasonable.

I would not conclude that God does not exist because most modern scientists are atheists and only a few consider the idea of intelligent design more plausible.

[polonius]

Elijah John wrote:

For debate, what place if any should the conclusions of historical Jesus scholarship have in orthodox Christian theology or liturgy? Is it time to revise the Creeds?

You make it sound like all historical Jesus scholarship agrees with Bart Ehrman that Jesus is not God when, in reality, the majority of said scholarship argues cogently and persuasively that he is. Contemporary scholars who hold to the deity of Jesus Christ include:

Dan Wallace
Darrell Bock
Richard Bauckham
Craig Blomberg
Craig Evans
Michael Brown
Michael Licona
Gordon Fee
Michael Kruger
Robert Bowman
D. A. Carson
Gary Habermas
F. F. Bruce
Andreas Kostenberger
R.C. Sproul
Alister McGrath
Leon Morris
James Edwards
William Barclay
Craig Keener
Doug Groothuis
Scott McKnight
R. T. France
Victor Shepherd

And those are only a few of the ones I have studied and/or taken courses from. There are many, many, MANY more. They far outnumber the nay-sayers.

And then there were the early church fathers who accepted Jesus as God Incarnate including Ignatius (30 to 107 A.D.), Justin Martyr (110 to 165 A.D), Irenaeus (120 to 202 A.D.) as well as Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and Augustine and more.

So Ehrman's conclusions are NOT the conclusions of everyone involved in the study of Jesus and it is erroneous to suggest that they are.

As to your question re: their place, here's the good that ALL heretics do. They challenge everyone to think deeply about what they believe, why they believe it and whether it's a belief they need to hang on to, alter or dismiss. And then, knowing the truth, they learn how to communicate it to others, making sure that those who might be misled by heresies are able to assess and reject them. That's what challenges to the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ did when Athanasius took on the heresy of Arius in the fourth century and that's what challenges to the Trinity and Christ as God Incarnate do today as scholars like those I named address them.

RESPONSE Thank you for your list of names But since you are not telling us what they wrote, it is of no value.

If I provide a list of names of theologians who say that Jesus was not divine, will you believe them???

Perhaps we can start at the beginning. I'll lead off with these three questions.

1. One of the earliest Christian writings about Christianity is the Didache. Is there any reference to the divinity of Jesus in it?

2. Did Jesus's brothers and sisters (or "cousins'') who lived with him claim Jesus was divine?

3. Did the Christians who were very observant members of the Temple community claim that Jesus was divine?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by Overcomer]

Two things,

I'm guessing that all of those people you list are Evangelicals or other orthodox Trinitarians.

Secondly, how do you account that the earth-shattering claims that John makes regarding Jesus Divinity are not in the earliest Gospel Mark or the early sources Q, M or L?

Was "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" and "I am the Vine" and "the Word was God" not important for Mark's audience to know? Or Luke or Matthew's?

[Elijah John]

Elijah John wrote:

For debate, what place if any should the conclusions of historical Jesus scholarship have in orthodox Christian theology or liturgy? Is it time to revise the Creeds?

You make it sound like all historical Jesus scholarship agrees with Bart Ehrman that Jesus is not God when, in reality, the majority of said scholarship argues cogently and persuasively that he is. Contemporary scholars who hold to the deity of Jesus Christ include:

Dan Wallace
Darrell Bock
Richard Bauckham
Craig Blomberg
Craig Evans
Michael Brown
Michael Licona
Gordon Fee
Michael Kruger
Robert Bowman
D. A. Carson
Gary Habermas
F. F. Bruce
Andreas Kostenberger
R.C. Sproul
Alister McGrath
Leon Morris
James Edwards
William Barclay
Craig Keener
Doug Groothuis
Scott McKnight
R. T. France
Victor Shepherd

And those are only a few of the ones I have studied and/or taken courses from. There are many, many, MANY more. They far outnumber the nay-sayers.

And then there were the early church fathers who accepted Jesus as God Incarnate including Ignatius (30 to 107 A.D.), Justin Martyr (110 to 165 A.D), Irenaeus (120 to 202 A.D.) as well as Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and Augustine and more.

So Ehrman's conclusions are NOT the conclusions of everyone involved in the study of Jesus and it is erroneous to suggest that they are.

As to your question re: their place, here's the good that ALL heretics do. They challenge everyone to think deeply about what they believe, why they believe it and whether it's a belief they need to hang on to, alter or dismiss. And then, knowing the truth, they learn how to communicate it to others, making sure that those who might be misled by heresies are able to assess and reject them. That's what challenges to the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ did when Athanasius took on the heresy of Arius in the fourth century and that's what challenges to the Trinity and Christ as God Incarnate do today as scholars like those I named address them.

RESPONSE Thank you for your list of names But since you are not telling us what they wrote, it is of no value.

If I provide a list of names of theologians who say that Jesus was not divine, will you believe them???

Perhaps we can start at the beginning. I'll lead off with these three questions.

1. One of the earliest Christian writings about Christianity is the Didache. Is there any reference to the divinity of Jesus in it?

2. Did Jesus's brothers and sisters (or "cousins'') who lived with him claim Jesus was divine?

3. Did the Christians who were very observant members of the Temple community claim that Jesus was divine?

Yes, Overcomer. Polonius makes a good point here. Can you, will you summarize the argument made by the people on your list that indicates Jesus claimed Divinity for himself right at the start? Ehrman made his case that he didn't, and in one succinct paragraph.

So let's not compare lists, but rather let's compare the essence of their respective arguments. Otherwise, your list is simply a fallacious appeal to authority.

And did Athanasius and his followers ever apply scholastic methods, consider the chronology of the sources or employ cultural are religious context? I doubt it. Yes they no doubt delved deeply into their respective theologies, but those theologies accept at face value the assumptions of the Gospels, and no doubt gave equal weight to the GoJ. Even the "heretic" Arius no doubt accepted the Gospels at face value, much as modern JWs do today.