What do you think?
Rate this book
When Did Jesus Become God?: A Christological Debate
How did early Christians come to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the divine Son of God? This is the central question in this book. When Did Jesus Become God? is a transcribed conversation between Bart Ehrman and Michael Bird, with a helpful historiographic introduction by Robert Stewart that helps readers understand the conclusions reached by Ehrman and Bird. Ehrman contends that neither Jesus himself nor the apostles believed that Jesus was divine during Jesus' life; it was only after Jesus was crucified and the apostles began to have visions and revelations that they became convinced that Jesus was a godlike figure who was sent by God. Over an extended period of time, the early church solidified its belief that Jesus was "God"―first, with an inventive claim that Jesus was exalted to divinity, then later by seeing him as a preexistent angel become human. Bird disagrees. Based on different historiographic criteria and different readings of Scripture, he asserts that Jesus himself claimed to be the divine Son during his lifetime and that many of the apostles believed Jesus to be identified with God's own prerogatives and identity. In Bird's account of the early church, Jesus was the preexistent Son of God from the beginning, who then became human, exercised the role of Israel's Messiah, and was exalted as God the Father's vice-regent.
125 pages, Paperback
Published October 25, 2022
7 people are currently reading
59 people want to read
About the author
Bart D. Ehrman
69 books2,111 followersBart Denton Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
November 12, 2022
I found When Did Jesus Become God a disappointing read. The book is the transcription of a conversation between two theologians about when and how Jesus came to be perceived a G-d in the sense enumerated in the Nicene Creed. This conversation was prefaced by a long essay on approaches one should take to such Biblical scholarship. The opening essay made good points, but its substance put the remainder of the book to shame because it was written with a care that the subsequent discussion itself lacked.
The discussion itself suffered from being a direct transcription. Awkward wording and tangential asides were retained, which undercut the seriousness of the book's purpose. I would have much preferred a judiciously edited version of this conversation that didn't put me in the unsatisfying position of having to sort wheat from chaff, so to speak.
Bird and Ehrman, the two scholars in discussion, are both erudite and leaders in the research attempting to address this question, but a reader would do better to read some of their work written for publication, where precision and organization make the read more productive and satisfying.
I received a free electronic review copy of this title from the publisher via EdelweissPlus; the opinions are my own.
The discussion itself suffered from being a direct transcription. Awkward wording and tangential asides were retained, which undercut the seriousness of the book's purpose. I would have much preferred a judiciously edited version of this conversation that didn't put me in the unsatisfying position of having to sort wheat from chaff, so to speak.
Bird and Ehrman, the two scholars in discussion, are both erudite and leaders in the research attempting to address this question, but a reader would do better to read some of their work written for publication, where precision and organization make the read more productive and satisfying.
I received a free electronic review copy of this title from the publisher via EdelweissPlus; the opinions are my own.
May 7, 2023
The debate format's biggest contribution here is illustrating the counterproductive aspects of the debate format. At least for me. Any inclination I might have had to read Michael Bird's work was eliminated by his misrepresentations of Ehrman's arguments. I suppose it could have tactical value in encouraging those who haven't read Ehrman's book(s) to do so, which is a much more fruitful endeavor.
February 15, 2023
This short work is a “Christological Debate” between the biblical scholars Bart Ehrman and Michael Bird. The main question under debate is NOT whether Jesus was a god or not, but what early christ-cult followers believed about his divinity. As such it is an interesting debate. Ehrman continues to speak as a “liberal agnostic christian” (and I continue to feel he holds too tightly to the “Jesus said” of “the NT says,” bits, while he eloquently argues against the historicity of Paul’s, the Gospels’, or Acts’ historicity in the stories or sayings in so much of his writing over the past two decades. So, as usual, I find myself agreeing with Ehrman’s conclusions, while wishing he would state them a bit stronger. But he remains christianity’s (especially American Protestant christianity) favorite scholarly bad-boy. Stewart, on the other hand, likes to come across as moderately liberal in his views, but seems to be holding tightly to doctrinal beliefs as portrayed by the more conservative side of the Anglican/Episcopalian church. I believe the debate came about as a reaction to Ehrman’s recent work, “How Jesus Became God” (2014), which discusses much of the same arguments presented here, though in greater detail. However, this debate adds a bit of a personal touch and some interesting details to the discussion in Ehrman’s earlier book. So, if you are really into this stuff read this, but even then I suggest reading the 2014 work first.
[note: some may think the book listing misleading (purposefully to sell copies?), expecting this to be more a Bart Ehrman book with maybe contributions by the other two authors. But upon opening the book one finds that the largest section is a monograph by the third author discussing the problems, philosophical and otherwise, with interpreting the historicity of ancient texts, esp. religious texts. The remainder is a back and forth between Ehrman and Bird. This is not meant to mislead. Mainly this is the transcript of a particular debate between two biblical scholars, ending with a series of audience questions and responses. Robert Stewart is the moderator/presenter of the debate. For academic-style works like this, it is a long tradition to list the moderator/editor first and then list the debaters. The moderator serves to put the debate in context, which is what Stewart is doing. So, this being catalogued as an Ehrman book is correct.]
[note: some may think the book listing misleading (purposefully to sell copies?), expecting this to be more a Bart Ehrman book with maybe contributions by the other two authors. But upon opening the book one finds that the largest section is a monograph by the third author discussing the problems, philosophical and otherwise, with interpreting the historicity of ancient texts, esp. religious texts. The remainder is a back and forth between Ehrman and Bird. This is not meant to mislead. Mainly this is the transcript of a particular debate between two biblical scholars, ending with a series of audience questions and responses. Robert Stewart is the moderator/presenter of the debate. For academic-style works like this, it is a long tradition to list the moderator/editor first and then list the debaters. The moderator serves to put the debate in context, which is what Stewart is doing. So, this being catalogued as an Ehrman book is correct.]
December 5, 2025
There are books one reads for answers—and books one reads to learn how arguments ought to be made. "When Did Jesus Become God?" belongs firmly to the latter category.
While marketed as a debate on early Christology—specifically, whether Jesus was understood as divine from the earliest strata of Christianity or gradually exalted in later tradition—the true intellectual substance of this volume lies not in its conclusions, but in its methodology. For me, the most enduring and quietly luminous component of the book is not the exchange between Bart Ehrman and Michael Bird, but Robert B. Stewart’s introductory essay: “Instructions for Assessing Historical Arguments." It is here that the book accomplishes something rare and commendable—it equips the reader not merely with positions, but with the tools required to judge between them.
Stewart’s essay offers a lucid and disciplined breakdown of historical reasoning into its working parts: defeaters, abductive reasoning, the burden of proof, criteria of authenticity, and cumulative-case arguments. These concepts—standard fare for trained historians, philosophers, and textual critics—are too often glossed over in popular religion-writing. Stewart does not merely list them; he teaches them. He explains how arguments may fail not only because they are false, but because they are underdetermined, poorly constrained by evidence, or blind to rival explanations. He introduces abductive reasoning not as conjecture, but as disciplined inference to the best explanation. He treats “criteria of authenticity” not as magical sieves but as probabilistic tools—fragile, fallible, and easily misused.
In short, Stewart reminds the reader that historical thinking is not the accumulation of facts, but the art of weighing explanations under conditions of scarcity, bias, and distance. And that, to my mind, is the real book.
The remainder—a transcribed debate between Ehrman and Bird—reads like what it is: a live intellectual exchange frozen in print. Both scholars are accomplished; both are working within serious frameworks of historical inquiry. Ehrman presses his familiar thesis of early “exaltation Christology”—that Jesus was not originally regarded as divine but was increasingly elevated in theological status over time. Bird, by contrast, defends an early “high Christology,” arguing that reverence of Jesus as divine appears shockingly early within Jewish-Christian communities.
But if Stewart offers architecture, the debate offers atmosphere. It captures something oddly honest about live debates: not the triumph of reason but the collision of frameworks. Arguments are repeated rather than refined. Evidentiary challenges are parried rather than settled. Nuance collapses under the pressure of time constraints and rhetoric. One does not get synthesis; one gets survival. The experience is less like witnessing dialectic and more like observing tectonic plates grinding past one another—each massive, each unyielding. This is not a fault of either scholar; it is just, unfortunately, the nature of adversarial format itself.
So while the debate may interest devoted students of Christology, I found it less illuminating than exhausting—an exercise in intellectual endurance rather than historical clarity. Much of it is, in any case, already accessible online in audio and video form.
Paradoxically, then, the book’s deepest value lies not in its primary marketed conflict, but in its preface. Therefore, if you approach it with hopes of learning how historical claims are built, contested, weakened, and defended—and how belief is justified under uncertainty—then Stewart’s essay alone earns my recommendation.
While marketed as a debate on early Christology—specifically, whether Jesus was understood as divine from the earliest strata of Christianity or gradually exalted in later tradition—the true intellectual substance of this volume lies not in its conclusions, but in its methodology. For me, the most enduring and quietly luminous component of the book is not the exchange between Bart Ehrman and Michael Bird, but Robert B. Stewart’s introductory essay: “Instructions for Assessing Historical Arguments." It is here that the book accomplishes something rare and commendable—it equips the reader not merely with positions, but with the tools required to judge between them.
Stewart’s essay offers a lucid and disciplined breakdown of historical reasoning into its working parts: defeaters, abductive reasoning, the burden of proof, criteria of authenticity, and cumulative-case arguments. These concepts—standard fare for trained historians, philosophers, and textual critics—are too often glossed over in popular religion-writing. Stewart does not merely list them; he teaches them. He explains how arguments may fail not only because they are false, but because they are underdetermined, poorly constrained by evidence, or blind to rival explanations. He introduces abductive reasoning not as conjecture, but as disciplined inference to the best explanation. He treats “criteria of authenticity” not as magical sieves but as probabilistic tools—fragile, fallible, and easily misused.
In short, Stewart reminds the reader that historical thinking is not the accumulation of facts, but the art of weighing explanations under conditions of scarcity, bias, and distance. And that, to my mind, is the real book.
The remainder—a transcribed debate between Ehrman and Bird—reads like what it is: a live intellectual exchange frozen in print. Both scholars are accomplished; both are working within serious frameworks of historical inquiry. Ehrman presses his familiar thesis of early “exaltation Christology”—that Jesus was not originally regarded as divine but was increasingly elevated in theological status over time. Bird, by contrast, defends an early “high Christology,” arguing that reverence of Jesus as divine appears shockingly early within Jewish-Christian communities.
But if Stewart offers architecture, the debate offers atmosphere. It captures something oddly honest about live debates: not the triumph of reason but the collision of frameworks. Arguments are repeated rather than refined. Evidentiary challenges are parried rather than settled. Nuance collapses under the pressure of time constraints and rhetoric. One does not get synthesis; one gets survival. The experience is less like witnessing dialectic and more like observing tectonic plates grinding past one another—each massive, each unyielding. This is not a fault of either scholar; it is just, unfortunately, the nature of adversarial format itself.
So while the debate may interest devoted students of Christology, I found it less illuminating than exhausting—an exercise in intellectual endurance rather than historical clarity. Much of it is, in any case, already accessible online in audio and video form.
Paradoxically, then, the book’s deepest value lies not in its primary marketed conflict, but in its preface. Therefore, if you approach it with hopes of learning how historical claims are built, contested, weakened, and defended—and how belief is justified under uncertainty—then Stewart’s essay alone earns my recommendation.
November 4, 2024
Somebody Please Play the Theopnuestos Card!
My fault for expecting something akin to the Four Views books with carefully written essays and rebuttals. This was a transcript of a debate, and not even cleaned up to remove shouts from the audience and the many thank you's and other verbal clutter that could have been trimmed.
I admit I only skimmed the interminable introduction by Stewart that struck me as just wheel-spinning to stretch the book's length to 100 pages. And academics sure know how to spin their wheels and kick up a lot of dust without ever going anywhere.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure the actual debate took readers anywhere either. It was Ehrman once again restating his solid and compelling arguments and Bird on the defensive, clearly punching above his weight, offering weak arguments all the way through.
I'm a believing Christian, and kept wishing that Bird, a fellow believing Christian, would simply state that we hold to a presuppositional truth in the divine inspiration of the biblical texts. That while yeah, nobody was there to record the words of Caiaphas to Jesus, we trust the Holy Spirit inspired the writers with those words. Bird never took that tact, and thus his arguments were tenuous at best because taking the New Testament as a collection of man-made documents without divine inspiration informing them they will fall woefully short.
It comes down to faith: I choose to believe these gospels and letters were divinely inspired, God-breathed/theopnuestos. Bird and other professing Christians who meet Ehrman in debate need to muster the courage to take that steadfast stand; otherwise they are left defending a house of cards that Ehrman need only blow upon to bring down, as happened here.
My fault for expecting something akin to the Four Views books with carefully written essays and rebuttals. This was a transcript of a debate, and not even cleaned up to remove shouts from the audience and the many thank you's and other verbal clutter that could have been trimmed.
I admit I only skimmed the interminable introduction by Stewart that struck me as just wheel-spinning to stretch the book's length to 100 pages. And academics sure know how to spin their wheels and kick up a lot of dust without ever going anywhere.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure the actual debate took readers anywhere either. It was Ehrman once again restating his solid and compelling arguments and Bird on the defensive, clearly punching above his weight, offering weak arguments all the way through.
I'm a believing Christian, and kept wishing that Bird, a fellow believing Christian, would simply state that we hold to a presuppositional truth in the divine inspiration of the biblical texts. That while yeah, nobody was there to record the words of Caiaphas to Jesus, we trust the Holy Spirit inspired the writers with those words. Bird never took that tact, and thus his arguments were tenuous at best because taking the New Testament as a collection of man-made documents without divine inspiration informing them they will fall woefully short.
It comes down to faith: I choose to believe these gospels and letters were divinely inspired, God-breathed/theopnuestos. Bird and other professing Christians who meet Ehrman in debate need to muster the courage to take that steadfast stand; otherwise they are left defending a house of cards that Ehrman need only blow upon to bring down, as happened here.
June 15, 2024
Very odd as an audiobook, as the debate itself can be seen on Youtube for free. The audiobook version gives a transcript of the talk, which loses something of the delivery in the translation and narrator's voice. To fill out (or uncharitably pad) the book, you get an introduction that covers ways of establishing truth in examining the Bible account, and a 'further reading' section that is undoubtably more useful on paper than read out loud.
The debate itself was decent, if one sided as Bart's opponent didn't add definitives as much as an appeal to "it's complicated", while Bart attempts to give an actual answer to the question. But this presentation of it is just a mess - watch the actual debate instead.
The debate itself was decent, if one sided as Bart's opponent didn't add definitives as much as an appeal to "it's complicated", while Bart attempts to give an actual answer to the question. But this presentation of it is just a mess - watch the actual debate instead.
June 25, 2023
This is an account of a debate about whether the early disciples believe Jesus to be God, and if not, when they started thinking about his being a divine being. It is an overview of a topic for which Dr. Ehrman wrote an entire long book about. It contrasts the historical views of adoption and exaltation through history. It is a short, but good overview of scholarly opinions on this important topic in the early history of Christianity.
August 3, 2024
Interesting. Nice to hear people on opposite sides of an issue discussing their differences politely and respectfully. I wish we could import some of that into our public debates on other issues, but of course, those tend to be designed to inflame.
June 25, 2023
Short book to quickly tackle the material that the two debaters have written in longer formats. The first portion of the book, though, is not about the debate, but it useful information and definitions for how to think of historical material. Overall a good book to read if you’re new to the topic or the authors.
September 26, 2024
Don’t waste your time with this one, even if it is free on Audible.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews