Setting the Record Straight: A Response to Bart Ehrman’s NPR Article

The cover of Bart Ehrman’s book How Jesus Became God, which shaped his NPR article and interview. This rebuttal responds directly to the arguments presented in both.

Recently, NPR published an article and interview with Bart Ehrman titled “If Jesus Never Called Himself God, How Did He Become One?”. In it, Ehrman argues that Jesus never claimed divinity, and that belief in His divinity was something the church developed only after His death.

I encourage you to read Ehrman’s article for yourself. I don’t believe in shielding people from opposing viewpoints. In fact, Christians should engage them thoughtfully. My goal here is not to silence Ehrman but to demonstrate why his claims are misleading, historically careless, and theologically unsound. After reading both sides, you can make your own determination.

Let’s walk through why his case falls apart under scrutiny.

Jesus Did Claim to Be God—But in a Jewish Way

Ehrman insists that because Jesus never literally said, “I am God,” He therefore never claimed divinity. But that demand reflects a Western mindset that expects blunt, creedal statements.

First-century Jews understood identity through actions, idioms, and echoes of Scripture, not through systematic theological formulas. When Jesus declared, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58), He was invoking the divine Name revealed to Moses. His audience understood perfectly—that’s why they picked up stones to kill Him for blasphemy.

To dismiss this as “not explicit enough” is to ignore the Jewish context and impose modern categories on ancient texts.

Jesus Spoke with Intentionality His Audience Understood

Jesus communicated with precision, drawing on Jewish idioms, Scriptures, and prophetic patterns His listeners knew by heart.

• He forgave sins—something only God could do.

• He received worship—something no faithful Jew would allow unless it was rightfully His.

• He calmed storms, redefined the Sabbath, and claimed authority to judge the world—each a divine prerogative.

Western readers often miss this intentionality because we expect Jesus to speak like a modern philosopher. But His first-century Jewish audience had no such confusion. They knew what He was claiming. Some believed. Others raged. None misunderstood.

The Roman Occupation Lens

Ehrman also ignores the political reality of Roman occupation. Every word of the New Testament was spoken under Caesar’s shadow.

To claim titles like Lord and Son of God was not neutral theology—it was political sedition. Caesar was hailed as divine. When Jesus and His followers used those titles for Him, they weren’t merely debating doctrine. They were directly challenging Roman propaganda. It wasn't the priority, but it was inevitably received that way.

This is why Pilate crucified Him under the charge “King of the Jews.” Both Jews and Romans understood His claim to divine kingship. Ehrman’s analysis, blind to this context, simply doesn’t hold up.

Early Christian Witness: Immediate, Not Invented

Of course, the New Testament was written after Jesus’ death. But Ehrman misleads readers by suggesting that His divinity was a late development. The evidence proves otherwise.

Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (A.D. 55) quotes an even earlier creed in chapter 15:

“That Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day, and that He appeared…”

This creed reflects what Christians were already proclaiming within a few years of the crucifixion: Jesus’ sinless life, sacrificial death, and victorious resurrection.

Paul confirms this same gospel in Galatians, where he notes his message matched the testimony of the apostles—Peter, John, and James, the brother of Jesus. Acts records the same unity. Every New Testament writer—without exception—presents Jesus as divine.

The earliest Christians didn’t develop His divinity; they preached it immediately.

Ehrman’s Eisegesis and Intellectual Dishonesty

When confronted with passages that undermine his thesis, Ehrman dismisses them as later “embellishments.” That is not careful scholarship—it’s confirmation bias.

He accepts evidence that suits his conclusions and rejects what doesn’t, all while presenting his version to lay readers as if it’s settled fact. This isn’t education; it’s manipulation. His popular books thrive not because they’re accurate, but because they stir controversy and profit off an audience unfamiliar with hermeneutics.

These are the realities he overlooks:

• Jesus claimed divinity through word, action, and identity.

• His Jewish audience understood Him clearly—whether they worshiped Him or accused Him of blasphemy.

• His claims carried explosive weight under Roman rule.

• The earliest Christian communities preached His divinity immediately, not decades later.

Final Word

Bart Ehrman flattens the cultural, theological, and political landscape of the first century into a simplistic narrative that sells well but explains little.

The truth is undeniable: Jesus spoke as God, acted as God, was condemned as God, and was worshiped as God from the very beginning of the church.

His contemporaries didn’t need Him to say “I am God” in modern English prose to recognize His claim. They understood perfectly. Ehrman, either unwilling or unable to, does not.