How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature---A Response to Bart D. Ehrman Paperback – March 25, 2014

I know what some critics have said about this book. They do not like the flippant style of one of the authors.I bought the book and have read most of it by now. I will probably get the copy by Ehrman from the library. I have the feeling that we are seeing the 21st century version of some sort of traveling road show, with Ehrman (the liberal or agnostic renegade) pitted against some fairly well-versed evangelical scholars. The line of point-counterpoint books just keep on coming. At some point, people may weary of the trend. But it does allow anyone who wants it the chance to explore different perspectives and varying theological points at the popular level.My position on anything of this sort is to consult the authors' sources -- their footnotes and/or bibliography -- and read some or all of their sources (depending on interest and time) to see if you agree with the sources. This will also deepen your knowledge of a subject so that you know a bit more than just the he said--he said aspect of the issue. The book does have great endnotes, and I heartily recommend them for all readers.The book is not too long -- for those who might be intimidated by such a thing (205 pages), the typeface not too small, or the general "look" of it too academic for those of us who are not academics. The chapter titles give a good idea of subject matter ("What Did the First Christians Think About Jesus?"), and they deliver on that promise.The content of these chapters will give the reader a fair overview of the subject and how the author feels the topic (e.g., "Problems with Ehrman's Interpretive Categories") relates or refutes Ehrman's position. Some subjects will interest more than others. I found the various excursuses (excursi? excurses?) on second and third century evidence for Jesus as God to be quite helpful, and a real challenge to those who think, generally, that Jesus became God with Constantine, or some other version of that story.I also especially liked the excursus on "Kings, Angels, and Holy Men."And P.S., I said a challenge. When I read Ehrman, maybe he will enlighten me further about the moment when Jesus became God..But I am not counting on it. I read Misquoting Jesus by Ehrman a few years back -- and have heard him speak many times and read other works of his. He is a riveting speaker, quite talented. He possesses the ability to take dry and academic concepts and put them into every-day language. Whether he does justice to the material in doing that -- well, that is why reading endnotes and checking other books is crucial for anyone who wishes to really know the subject -- and not just go on the internet and blow hard.I then read Fabricating Jesus, the rebuttal book to Misquoting Jesus, done by Craig Evans ( who has the chapter "Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidences Right" in this book). Before I read Misquoting and Fabricating, I had spent several years researching some of those same issues for myself. I had just returned to Christianity, and I wanted to figure out where I stood on issues of the biblical text. I encountered Ehrman early on, with some Teaching Company lectures on the New Testament, and was massively impressed by him-- until I read a book by a woman theologian (Gillingham) who essentially showed me (without meaning to) that you can do anything with statistics -- or other pieces of information -- and that Ehrman had done that with some aspects of the Teaching Company lectures.Thus, when it came time to Misquoting and Fabricating, I already was in agreement with Evans' analysis. I suspect that my opinions of the current scholarly matchup fall in line the same way. The chapter by Evans in this book is high quality. I did think there were parts of the book that I preferred over others. It may depend a lot on what aspect of the issue most interests me at the moment. If I come back to it in a year, or if I come back to it after reading Ehrman, I might find some other chapters that suddenly leap out at me.Yes, Mr. Bird's style is flippant and he tries to be amusing. That is not too usual for someone who expects, or prefers, an academic tone. For example: "Ehrman's view of Jesus is low, so low in fact that it could possibly win a limbo contest against a leprachaun" (p. 11).But he makes some good points while he is at it. The only problem is that after you have read something by him, then you flip over to Chris Tilling or Charles Hill or Simon Gathercole or Evans. They write in less exuberant styles. But Bird is the general editor of the book. He got to do things the way he wanted to do things.

By way of introduction, I am an Anglican priest with two masters degrees, the equivalent of a third, and a doctoral degree (D.Min.) from The School of Theology of the University of the South (Sewanee), an Anglican/Episcopal seminary, so I have done some theological studies. I don’t earn my living as a priest, though, but as a school counselor and psychology teacher. Over the last couple of years, I became somewhat enamoured with the writings of Bart Ehrman. Specifically, I read and studied the following texts: Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them); The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew; Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why; Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are; and How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. Truth be known, I really bought into Ehrman’s research and his writings and began to believe that Jesus was really simply an apocalyptic Jewish prophet, and perhaps the messiah (in a human way), but certainly not the incarnate Son of God and second person of the Holy Trinity. As time passed, and my wife became more and more disenchanted with my “new” beliefs, she told me one evening how much she disliked Bart Ehrman. Well, I liked (and still very much respect) Bart Ehrman’s work, but I decided to read a couple of books purported to debunk Ehrman’s theories with their own research, just to see for myself and to give the “other side; i.e. orthodox Christianity” another shot. I am so glad that I did! The books that I read are Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" by Timothy Paul Jones and How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature---A Response to Bart D. Ehrman by M.F. Bird, C.A. Evans, S. Gathercole, C.E. Hill and C. Tilling. Both of these books are well written and very informative. Misquoting Truth is a bit “folksy” at times for me (this is serious material and I am not a bit folksy about it), but Jones’ research is sound and his logic inescapable. How God Became Jesus is quite a bit heavier and deeply researched (amazingly so) and I found it answered so many of the questions I had that Ehrman raised. Both books are well worth reading and I am going to give them both five stars because of this.