Loading...Here is the third post in my series celebrating our 14th blog anniversary, a post from each of our 14 past years. This is the one I’ve chosen from April 2014; it’s another one that involves a response to a rather spirited attempt to show that I’m an idiot. I tried not to respond TOO much in kind, but, well, I guess it is a bit feisty….
******************************
Sometimes I think that if I’m “getting it from all sides,” I may be doing something right. The religious conservatives seems to be up in arms about my book How Jesus Became God – both conservative evangelical Protestants and conservative Roman Catholics like the Very Reverend Robert Barron. In fact, as I’ve said, I do not think anything in the book is inimical to Christian faith, unless it is completely committed to a view of the infallibility of the Bible and its full, historical accuracy. The Christianity I admire is not
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
As I’ve been listening to your debates, I’ve sometimes wondered how one learns to disagree without becoming emotional, as you often seem able to do. Of course, I suppose even that has its limits.
I tend to value courtesy and civility—perhaps that reflects Japanese culture, though it is something I take pride in. For that reason, I find myself agreeing with what you said. It seems to me that debate is most meaningful when it helps us clarify where we truly disagree, rather than when it is used to diminish others.
Just a personal reflection—no reply necessary.
Thanks. I often feel like I’m “losing it” in those debates, especially when someone uses bad arguments that may sound convincing to those who are already inclined to be convinced, instead of genuinely good arguments…
Hi Dr. Ehrman! 1 Corinthians 15 Paul says that the resurrected Jesus appeared to 500 followers at one time. What is the critical scholarship on this claim? What are your thoughts? I know from experience this is sometimes used as “proof” of the resurrection. Thanks!
I think generally scholars are suspicious of the claim. If it were true, surely the Gospel writers (many years after Paul) would have heard about it and if they did, surely they would have mentioned it. Seems like a pretty important point to overlook.
Paul is the only one who speaks of it, and he doesn’t indicate where he got it from and whether he himself actually knows anyone in the alleged group. It’s probably a rumor he’s heard. There were at least as many religious rumors floating around then as now (I hear them all the time; you may as well)
Well said, Dr Ehrman.
Some great vintage posts and more to come, I’m sure. Thank you.
Dr. Ehrman, should we really expect contemporary writings of Jesus because of his miracles? Paul raised someone from the dead. So did Peter. Miracle workers in that day weren’t exactly unique, correct? Maybe even common enough to be considered… not worth mentioning?
There are miracle workers today that don’t make the news. Even one who raises people from the dead! Yet they don’t make the news because, well, umm, they’re not believable. Except they are believed. I’d encourage readers to do a search for “modern miracle workers”.
I’d really like to hear your input on this question: why should we expect contemporary writings of Jesus and his miracles? Miracle workers were common back then.
I suppose 99% of the people who are said to have done miracles over the years and centuries never are talked about in print. I myself know of people said to have done miracles on the local level (I myself “saw” some), and so far as I know, they never have been mentioned in writing — and we live in an age where writing is EVERYWHERE, as opposed to a world where it wsa VERYRARE. (I just made that rhyme up…)
Carrier is entertaining and erratic. His tracts are like reading science fiction. It’s enjoyable but not to be taken seriously. The paucity of information not to mention difficulty of independent access makes authentic scholarship priceless.
Is mythicism still going strong or has that died down any?
Small and vocal still.
Dear Bart,
On the subject of mean-spirited, bloviating, beyond-the-fringe characters – I see Trump has gone to war with the Pope (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp841y07w5xo)!
Do you have any comments on this? Historically, when national leaders go to war with the Bishop of Rome, who usually comes out on top?
I try to keep out of politics on the blog (and to keep politics out of the blog), since I’d like this kind of issues/knowledge we discuss to be of use to everyone of every religious and political persuasion, and not turn people off because they have strong political views I don’t share. But if we ever have a beer together again, I’ll be happy to state my opinions. If we have two, I’ll state them yet more forcefully….
dear dr Ehrman:
I appreciate your great in-depth material and catalogue.
in Hong Kong, what is called politics here is called daily life [how local govt influences their lives] there.
In Shanghai, local/municipal government is what the folks regard concerning their daily lives; & not so much the executive leadership until the Pandemic [I left].
My mother thought she heard from God all the time for the last 35 years.
so I can equate USA leadership & those people for 14 years of this century.
We were the global power 1st few years of this century also
Regarding Judas, his existence, and the nature of his betrayal: It’s always struck me as very unlikely that a man who (supposedly) heard Jesus make claims of divinity and witnessed him carrying out multiple supernatural miracles, would be prepared to betray him for any amount of money. Who could expect to escape punishment for betraying God, or even merely God’s anointed one?
So whatever else we can say about Judas, if he existed and betrayed Jesus, then that seems to be evidence that one of Jesus’s close followers, who had been with him for an extended period and knew him presumably very well, either:
1. never understood anything Jesus said to be a claim of divinity and never saw anything supernatural happen, or
2. saw and heard, but didn’t find Jesus’s claims to be convincing or his miracles to be persuasive.
Either of those possibilities is difficult to explain in terms of the traditional narrative. On the other hand, if someone was inventing a story designed to add to the defamation of Jews, they might not care about this kind of nuance.
Sounds right to me. I’d say as well that the two choices blend into each other…
Regarding Judas, there is one more possibility. Judas Iscariot was Judas the Sicarii. The Paid Assassin who infiltrated the inner circle with orders to assassinate Jesus when given the Kill Order from the Zealots of Damascus. But, Judas was convinced that Jesus was the Messiah. Judas convinced himself that Jesus needed to “infiltrate” the Office of the High Priest. What better way than to be arrested in a midnight raid? Cryptically, Jesus said to Judas, “Go and do what you have planned,” at the Last Supper. The Money? Judas expected a miracle from Jesus. He told the High Priest, “NO! JESUS IS INNOCENT!” In the Mosaic Law, if a slave is accidentally killed; then recompense is 30 shekels. (the price of a replacement slave).
Judas was a pawn in the Drama. He went immediately to Heaven and his role was explained to him.
Yes, some scholars have tried to link the bame “Iscariot” to “sicarius” That’s usually not seen as philologically acceptable, but the idea that Judas was expecting a revolution and that somehow led to Jesus’ crucifixion (there are various ways to imagine the connection) is certainly plausible.
Your response is measured and on point, in contrast to the tone of the accusations. Why can’t those who disagree do so with honesty and a teachable spirit, raising their objections in a spirit of constructiveness instead of accusation? (I’d answer my own question by suggesting that, for some, it’s more about ego and scoring points than a striving after truth – so I can understand your reluctance to participate in a public exchange.)
Maybe I can ask for your thoughts on a related topic, though, since I encountered an Easter sermon that references the Letter of Pontius Pilate, supposedly written to the Roman Emperor. What are the likely origins and purpose of this letter? Thank you.
Yup, it’s an intriguing apocryphal text, that is accompanied by the emperor’s reply (he ends up executing Pilate for crucifying the son of God!). No one thinks its authentic, but it sure is interesting. Pilate informs the emperor that he crucified the son of God even though he knew he was innocent; his hand was forced by the Jews, who refused to believe / be persuaded by the many eyewitness testimonies to Jesus’ great miracles.
It’s part of a wider set of letters sometimes the Pilate Gospels; I translated them all as part of my collection of apocryphal Gospels, done with my colleague Zlatko Plese, called The Other Gospels.disabledupes{44e762323b942741a4d72333bb96181c}disabledupes
No surprise, I’m on Bart’s side of this debate and likely would be on anything between him and Carrier. But I am a bit taken aback by Bart’s spiciness here, if only because I mostly see Bart as being gentle and even generous toward biblical scholars who disagree with him even when they don’t deserve it.
I suspect it’s warranted with Richard Carrier – I’ve watched one or two of Carrier’s videos because I’m always up for religious debunking, but Carrier’s posture of superiority and condescension in those was off-putting. Fun read!
What a coincidence you posted about Carrier. I was looking up Kipp Davis yesterday after listening to him on the podcast Footnote Famous, and what do I find in the top Google results? Richard Carrier lambasting him. What a menace!
Your post had me search about for some of what he’s written about you, and I happened upon something from July of last year. You are completely unrecognizable.
Life is indeed too short to engage with people like that.
Not to defend Carrier, but he has softened up a bit, even to the point of changing his position about the existence of Jesus, from He did not exist to one-third likelihood that He did, two-thirds that He did not. How is one sort of a mythicist? Carrier does not claim he is a New Testament scholar, but an ancient world scholar (his PhD). There is a different perspective. Ehrman is a New Testament scholar, to me THE New Testament scholar. .
I love it when people discuss historical likelihoods in statistics. (There’s a 74% chance that there was a single gunman….)
Hi, Doc! I hope you are enjoying your retirement, you certainly deserve it!
I do think that some people aren’t worthy to debate you for reasons of their lack of mastery of the material, capacity to argue a cogent case for themselves and, certainly you shouldn’t have to put up with any disrespect or obnoxious behavior, especially from a so-called “scholar.” I would cite Justin Bass as another less-then-eventful debate I didn’t think was worthy of your time.
On the other hand, I’d love to see you debate Gary Habermas on the resurrection. His book of so-called “evidence” seems dubious to say the least!
I’ve met Gary, and he’s a nice guy. But yup, I find his case highly problematic.
I have tangled with Richard, who has the failing of thinking he knows more than he does about many things, including physics and philosophy (my turf). Unfortunate: wisdom is having a growing awareness of how little you know. However I do think the term ‘mythicism’ is unfortunate: the term is multiply ambiguous and usually derogatory, implying something made up of whole cloth. As an agnostic on the historicity issue, I demur. Anthropologists have long ago abandoned that assessment. Myths are typically (non-literally) true, like parables, and can have a performative function in the linguistic sense. IMO, the Bible is suffused with myths in that sense – though showing this is non-trivial. Here I am influenced by (but often disagree with) such figures as Durkheim, Levi-Strauss, Leach, Mary Douglas, Mauss, van Gennep, Terry Turner, and quite a number of others. They generally avoid Bible analysis, ostensibly for theoretical reasons but actually, imo, for largely pragmatic ones.
this morning I got an unauthorized email from Richard Carrier.I was happy until the price tag.
I can barely process Dr Ehrman’s materials, I have little capacity for more.
Yesterday, my sister’s sister in law said she believed Jesus Christ didn’t practice his divine powers until after the resurrection.
so I called her brother who we both believe from birth.
I had to mention Dr Ehrman[credibility] after baptism