Skip to main content
Customer Review
Reviewed in the United States on June 17, 2015
I should start this review with a full disclosure: I'm a recent convert to Christianity. I was raised irreligiously, and was agnostic leaning atheist not a few years ago. After devouring much literature on the subject, about a year or so ago, I became Christian. I made it 'official' a few months ago in a prayer. I am by all accounts, a liberal Christian. I decided to take it upon myself to find more about the roots of my religion. I started with the most absolute scratch and read 'Did Jesus Exist?' also by Bart D Ehrman which comes with a full recommendation on my behalf.
But I digress. Bart D Ehrman took it upon himself to investigate the early church and see when it came to be understood what I now believe -- that Jesus was God incarnate. As I said above, I'm a more liberal Christian. I have no problems believing the early church may have developed into this view.
Pros: Bart Ehrman has often been applauded for for his easy-to-read prose and outstanding use of citations on top of citations, giving all relevant information -- not an easy task when you're a scholar and some knowledge has been so immersed since your early years that you forget others might not know. Having now read two of his books, I can give similar praise. He delivers in a smooth, fashionable read that allowed me to tear through the book in less than a week.
Another good thing to point out is how he managed to condense a lot of needed pre-existing information rather fast. He knows his claims that Jesus had been exalted are the star of the book, and manages to give the background information needed in less than 80 pages. Though that may seem like a lot, it's a daunting task having to explain how 1st century people related to divinity. He explains thoroughly.
Another pro is the absolutely outstanding job he does on compactly explaining the history of the church on trinity, the Nicene Creed, and other such theologies we take for granted today. It unfortunately takes up the last 50 or so pages of the book, but it left me greedy and hungry for more information on the shaping of trinity.
Lastly, and most importantly: How well does Bart give his case? In this respect, I must give him half credit. If you are a skeptic like him, or even a more liberal Christian than I, you might very well be willing to agree with much of the case he makes. He claims Jesus never thought Himself as divine, using an odd bible quote here or there, and goes even further saying Jesus may have not thought Himself as the 'Son of Man' in some cases. He gives a well rounded, academic argument using the timeline of scripture, a few tricky words here or there that with a 21st century Christian mind may pay no heed -- but in context, could give a solid case for saying his disciples nor Jesus Himself thought of Him as Divine.
Cons: The most obvious thing being, if you are Christian, you'll probably reject some of Barts claims. Furthermore, he builds his case mostly from what can only be call [educated] guesses. At that, I also have a problem with how far he goes in some of his claims.
Just to give one example, he claims Jesus was [probably] never buried. His argument being, the crucified were apparently, mostly left to be fed by wild animals. Of course, me being Christian I do believe Jesus was buried and believe He was raised. But, I feel this may be the most fragile of Barts arguments. Even without reviewing academic papers or knowing fully what happened to the crucified in Rome, this seems like something early opponents of Christianity or those the apostles tried to proselytized would've been able to point out using common sense. 'How could Jesus have been buried. We don't bury our crucified.' This is only me talking here, but I will investigate his claims about the crucified further.
Another problem with the book is that at some points, Bart also makes rather grandiose claims that you would only have full knowledge of if you had read some of his other books. This would be fine if this were a scholarly book -- but it's not. It's made for laymen. True, he does say 'I've explained why this is case in other books' but, I shouldn't have to read other books. If you as the author are to make a book for laymen, this really should be the only book I have to buy. He did this almost three times in the book. True enough, I still had no trouble following his arguments, but the strength of his arguments were weakened because of the multitude of times he pointed to other books for further reference.
All in all, if you are a conservative Christian, you are completely free to read this book and dismiss much of his claims and only take in the absolute history of Constantine, the Nicene Creed, and other things which you can take as fact without losing your faith. If you're a more liberal Christian, you can accept this early shaping a developing of Jesus divinity while still proclaiming that we only misunderstood Him early on and fixed it later.
But I digress. Bart D Ehrman took it upon himself to investigate the early church and see when it came to be understood what I now believe -- that Jesus was God incarnate. As I said above, I'm a more liberal Christian. I have no problems believing the early church may have developed into this view.
Pros: Bart Ehrman has often been applauded for for his easy-to-read prose and outstanding use of citations on top of citations, giving all relevant information -- not an easy task when you're a scholar and some knowledge has been so immersed since your early years that you forget others might not know. Having now read two of his books, I can give similar praise. He delivers in a smooth, fashionable read that allowed me to tear through the book in less than a week.
Another good thing to point out is how he managed to condense a lot of needed pre-existing information rather fast. He knows his claims that Jesus had been exalted are the star of the book, and manages to give the background information needed in less than 80 pages. Though that may seem like a lot, it's a daunting task having to explain how 1st century people related to divinity. He explains thoroughly.
Another pro is the absolutely outstanding job he does on compactly explaining the history of the church on trinity, the Nicene Creed, and other such theologies we take for granted today. It unfortunately takes up the last 50 or so pages of the book, but it left me greedy and hungry for more information on the shaping of trinity.
Lastly, and most importantly: How well does Bart give his case? In this respect, I must give him half credit. If you are a skeptic like him, or even a more liberal Christian than I, you might very well be willing to agree with much of the case he makes. He claims Jesus never thought Himself as divine, using an odd bible quote here or there, and goes even further saying Jesus may have not thought Himself as the 'Son of Man' in some cases. He gives a well rounded, academic argument using the timeline of scripture, a few tricky words here or there that with a 21st century Christian mind may pay no heed -- but in context, could give a solid case for saying his disciples nor Jesus Himself thought of Him as Divine.
Cons: The most obvious thing being, if you are Christian, you'll probably reject some of Barts claims. Furthermore, he builds his case mostly from what can only be call [educated] guesses. At that, I also have a problem with how far he goes in some of his claims.
Just to give one example, he claims Jesus was [probably] never buried. His argument being, the crucified were apparently, mostly left to be fed by wild animals. Of course, me being Christian I do believe Jesus was buried and believe He was raised. But, I feel this may be the most fragile of Barts arguments. Even without reviewing academic papers or knowing fully what happened to the crucified in Rome, this seems like something early opponents of Christianity or those the apostles tried to proselytized would've been able to point out using common sense. 'How could Jesus have been buried. We don't bury our crucified.' This is only me talking here, but I will investigate his claims about the crucified further.
Another problem with the book is that at some points, Bart also makes rather grandiose claims that you would only have full knowledge of if you had read some of his other books. This would be fine if this were a scholarly book -- but it's not. It's made for laymen. True, he does say 'I've explained why this is case in other books' but, I shouldn't have to read other books. If you as the author are to make a book for laymen, this really should be the only book I have to buy. He did this almost three times in the book. True enough, I still had no trouble following his arguments, but the strength of his arguments were weakened because of the multitude of times he pointed to other books for further reference.
All in all, if you are a conservative Christian, you are completely free to read this book and dismiss much of his claims and only take in the absolute history of Constantine, the Nicene Creed, and other things which you can take as fact without losing your faith. If you're a more liberal Christian, you can accept this early shaping a developing of Jesus divinity while still proclaiming that we only misunderstood Him early on and fixed it later.
