Asad posted a comment on my Concluding Comments from Bart Ehrman and Michael Bird post. It is so insightful and significant I thought it worthwhile to make a separate post of it here.

Asad wrote:

Notice what Hurtado said:

“The historical Jesus did not claim he was divine and did not demand worship. The reason why the early Christians treated him as divine … was because they believed that God had exalted him to heavenly glory…” see 42:00 onwards.

I bring this to attention because evangelical Christian apologists, on the internet, often appeal to Hurtado when using critical scholarship to “show” that Jesus claimed to be divine or God in his historical ministry.

Hurtado’s argument, however, is that Jesus did not claim to be God/divine and was not worshipped as such in his historical ministry. Jesus was elevated in status, or exalted, by his followers upon their experience of the resurrection. In other words, Jesus’ followers came to view Jesus differently after learning about his resurrection. This “revelation,” as Hurtado puts it, caused them to elevate Jesus.

The strong scholarly consensus remains: Jesus in his historical ministry did not claim to be divine, God, the Second Person of the Trinity, God incarnate, or “more than a man.” These are later developments. The main dispute among scholars is on the question of *when* Jesus began to be worshipped as a divine being.

Hurtado argues that this “mutation” began almost immediately after the resurrection. But that the historical Jesus did not demand his worship and did not claim to be god is not really a disputed point. One can only, at most, point to Gathercole and Bird who wish to attribute pre-existence – or something of the sort – to the historical Jesus and perhaps a handful of hyper-conservative scholars.

Consider Hurtado’s explanation from one of his popular books How on earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus,

“Initially, Jesus was probably a follower of the fiery contemporary prophet of national repentance known as John “the Baptizer,” but after John’s arrest and execution … Jesus emerged more saliently as a prophet-like figure in his own right. He clearly and quickly became a controversial and polarizing figure for many, perhaps most, who had occasion to consider him seriously, and he remains so today.

By all indications, during his own historic lifetime Jesus became known in at least parts of Roman Judea through proclaiming the imminent arrival of God’s “kingdom.” … In addition to proclaiming and teaching about God’s kingdom, Jesus also seems to have engaged in other activities that had the effect of drawing further attention to him but were primarily intended to demonstrate something of the power and purposes of the divine kingdom that he announced. These other actions included calling a band of followers, pursuing an itinerant teaching activity, and taking controversial positions on some matters of religious practice. Both followers and opponents perceived Jesus as being able to perform miraculous healings and other deeds of supernatural power.″ pp. 2-3.

From p. 5: “In short, from a surprisingly early point after his death, Jesus’ followers were according to him at a level of devotion that far exceeded their own prior and impressive commitment to him during his lifetime.”

From p. 149: “But the far more intense devotion to Jesus that characterized early Christian circles so amazingly early was not simply the continuation of the pattern of homage given to the historical Jesus, and it cannot be accounted for adequately by referencing to Jesus’ ministry.

The “binitarian” pattern of devotion that we see already taken for granted in Paul’s letters and affirmed throughout the New Testament initially amounted to a major and apparently novel “mutation” in, or variant form of, Jewish monotheistic practice. Among first-century Christian circle … such a conviction represented a further, major development beyond the impact of the earthly ministry of Jesus. Just as it is inaccurate to restrict the belief that the risen Jesus shares in divine glory to circles of a supposedly distinctive “Christ cult” … so it would be simplistic to see this exalted a view of Jesus as having arisen in the time of his earthly ministry …

Each in his own way, the Evangelists distinguish between the level of recognition of Jesus’ status that characterised the time of his ministry and that which came to be expressed in the post-easter period.”

Larry W. Hurtado, How on earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus, 2005, Cambridge, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Explanations concerning historiography and faith made by all panelists, particularly Professor Dale Martin, are also important. Based on my understanding, their view is that (and, mind you, I do not agree with their explanation): it is not necessary for Jesus to have claimed to be God. Even if Jesus did not present himself as God, we can still view him as God because revelation guided the followers of Jesus to this new understanding of him after the resurrection. Historical evidence is not needed to verify faith.

According to Martin, revelation informed the early Christians that Jesus was raised from the dead. None of the following matters: that the empty tomb story is probably inauthentic; that there are discrepancies in the gospel resurrection narratives; that they do not stand strong to historical enquiry etc. Revelation just tells us that Jesus was resurrected, not who saw him, or what the resurrected Jesus was like, nor whether the empty tomb story is real…all of these do not matter. You only believe in the resurrection; the details are unimportant.

I do not share this opinion and find that our (Islamic) stance is more appropriate. Revelation tells us that Jesus was God’s prophet, messiah, miracle worker, that he did not claim to be divine in any sense. Historical critical enquiries support these positions. We accept on faith, based on Revelation, that Jesus did miracles. It is not required to have historical data for miracles. Revelation tells us that God saved Jesus from a humiliating end. Historical data cannot confirm or deny this and is not required to verify faith here through historiography. Miracles, as is widely accepted, are beyond the realm of historical enquiry (save prophecies, I think). We certainly accept certain things on faith, but are faithful to Jesus’ presentation of himself in his historical ministry.

Virtually all evangelical apologists proceed with deceit. They extensively cherry pick and misuse critical scholarship conveying the utterly misleading impression as if it verifies their beliefs about Jesus. The fact, however, is that critical scholarship has put an immense dent in almost all evangelical beliefs about Jesus – particularly his divinity. They will, at most, appeal to Gathercole and Bird make use of a few scholars from an earlier generation, appeal to some hyper-conservative evangelical scholars, yet bypass and utterly ignore the overwhelming bulk of scholarship. They will cherry pick Hurtado. I am convinced that Muslims, in sharp contrast, are not in this difficulty in terms of their belief about Jesus. We can accept much of mainstream critical scholarship without any “problems.” Mainstream historical Jesus studies, likewise, causes no “problems” for us whatsoever.

Unfortunately, many Muslims are grossly ignorant about New Testament scholarship and tend not to read books.

Categories: Biblical scholarship, Christianity, God, Islam