Loading...
My plan had been to return to the blog in full force when I got back to the States but, well, I’m a little slow on the uptake. We got back late Saturday night, and I decided to blow Sunday off. Actually, I watched the golf tournament all afternoon. Half way through I started feeling odd. By the end I wasn’t good at all. Stomach virus, probably. Brought it back with me from Israel. As did several other guys on the trip – four men, and none of their wives (including mine) affected. Very strange.
Anyway, I’m feeling a bit better now but not quite 70% yet. And I’m finding that I have little mental, as well as physical, energy. SO, what I would propose is that this would be a very good time indeed for some of you to raise some questions for me to address on the blog, about anything having to do with the New Testament, the historical Jesus, the history of early Christianity, or anything else of relevance. I imagine I’ll be lagging for a few days still, but it will definitely be easier for me to answer questions than to dream up things to say on my own. So feel free either to raise anything of interest here by commenting on this post, or by writing me a private email. I probably won’t be able to answer everything, but I’ll certainly deal with questions / issues that are particularly interesting to me and about which I have some competence.
If you’ve asked questions before and I haven’t gotten to them, feel free to try again.
…just get well…..take a week you will probably need it.
Not in my blood….
Bart.
A few questions that I would like you to answer if you have time. I know I’ll be lucky if you have time to answer even one, so in order of importance (to me!)…..
1. Re. Mark’s gospel.
Why are scholars almost certain that Peter did not give the general details of Jesus’ life and ministry to his companion Mark, who faithfully recorded the details in Greek, in the style found in his gospel? I know you’ve said that someone such as Peter, aside from not knowing Greek, almost certainly wouldn’t have had the ability to build the relatively sophisticated structure of Mark’s gospel, but why couldn’t Mark have “put form” on Peter’s prosaic verbal account ?
2. I heard a scholar’s (I think it was JD Crossan) saying that the absence of a resurrected Jesus in Mark’s original gospel reflects the confusion and anxiety that forlorn Jews would have felt after the destruction of the Temple? Do you think this is the case? If so, how does it fit in with the belief (widespread among scholars, I believe) that the accounts of a visibly resurrected Jesus were in circulation long before 70 AD and probably came from Peter, Paul , and Mary M?
3. Could you give some of the clues scholars have regarding the dating of Paul’s letters?
4. Were the claims Jesus made about himself, or the comments he made about other sects or leaders within Judaism, likely to have produced an angry or violent response from devout Jews in Jerusalem during Passover? Were his comments any more “out of the ordinary” than others would have been making about, say, the Temple authorities or whomever?
It would be great if you could answer any of these questions.
Regards.
PS. While I find all your posts interesting and know that you have lots of topics to cover, I would like to see a bit more on the historical Jesus. Just a comment, not a criticism!
Get well soon. 🙂
I am sorry that you are sick. I know a family who has just arrived sick in North Carolina after flying here from Saudi Arabia. Being a physician, I have been reading about the coronavirus. Google “Saudi Arabia Reports Four New Coronavirus Cases” for details. I have no clue why males rather than females would be getting sick.
I watched the golf as well. The fairways looked much too narrow for my weekend game and I know that I could not have stayed dry on the 17th hole.
Due to all of the contradictions in different Gospel accounts, it seems unlikely that the Gospels are historically reliable, but it seems like some ancient author would have written some reliable history about Jesus. Is this typical writing of this ancient time, meaning was much real history written or was it standard for authors to mostly make stuff up? I know about Josephus, but ….
I’d say if these authors were living today, in our world, with our sense of history, and our views of how history should be written, they absolutely would have striven for what we think of as accuracy. But historiography in the ancient world — without data retrieval systems, libraries, abundant written sources, or even widespread literacy — simply couldn’t work that way….
Hope you feel better soon.
I’m curious to know of future projects you have in mind after you complete your commentary on 2nd century gospels.
An easy one because you have probably answered this one many times And excuse me if I’ve missed it on one of your posts.
Is 1 Cor 11.3 likely to be Pauline or an insertion? It seems to link male hierarchy and subordination of Jesus to God all in one line.
Re stomach virus, scotch in sufficient dosage works well – it doesn’t really remove any viral pathology/symptoms but you just don’t care after awhile.
I think it is almost always considered to be Pauline. Even among scholars who don’t much like it!
If historical Jesus scholars believes that Jesus’ main message was the imminent apocalypse, and that didn’t happen, how can anyone who believe that remain a Christian, given that Jesus was wrong on the main focus of his life?
I think most informed Christians, who realize this about Jesus, simply don’t think his view of the calendar was the most important thing. And from a theological view, it is important, for many of them, to maintain that even if he was divine, he was also fully and in every way human. And to err is human.
OK, Bart, here’s something I’m wondering about. It may be slightly out of your area of expertise, but it’s not totally unrelated to your area and I think it’s relevant considering you were just in Israel. By any chance, are you familiar with the work of one Dr. Shlomo Sand, history professor at Tel Aviv University? For popular audiences, he has written “The Invention of the Jewish people” and more recently “The Invention of the land of Israel: From Holy Land to Homeland” In case you are not aware of this, Dr. Sand maintains that an exile of the Jews shortly after 70AD is really a myth and did not happen. On a side note, a documentary promoting this idea, if I’m not mistaken, was supposed to air in the UK, but was cancelled at the last minute.
Anyway, what do you think of this view of the jewish exile as a myth, which is maintained by Dr. Sand? Is this considered a mainstream view, or is it considered to be on the fringe? I’d love to hear your view on this, even if you believe it falls outside your area of expertise.
By the way, I might add that Dr. Sand and his views are VERY unpopular in zionist circles.
I’m afraid I haven’t heard of him or his work. I asked a good friend of mine who is also a New Testament scholar who has done a lot of work on Jews and Christians in antiquity, and he hadn’t heard of him either. So maybe his views haven’t made it over to this side of the pond very much?
Fair enough. I appreciate you taking the time to ask one of your fellow scholars about Dr. Sand. Thank you.
Hello,
I was wondering if someday you will write a book on the rise of antijudaism in early christian circles ?
If yo were to write such a book, what would the title and the subtitle be ?
Thank you for everything and sorry for the broken english (my native tongue is french …)
Alexandre
Alexandre: I don’t see any breaks in your English. It’s far better than my French! 🙂
Your thoughts on the current interest in James (Jacob) the brother of Jesus. Though much of what I have read is more speculative than I think is wise, I do think it is factually safe to say that what remains in literature about him probably shows more of what the historical Jesus was really like than even the gospels in the form we have them in now. I lean towards the idea that the statements saying the Temple was destroyed because of the death of James is a remnant of the history of the ‘zealous’ side of the Jesus movement that probably was part of the rebellion against Rome that took Jerusalem causing the subsequent siege. Tell me if you think I’m off base. Your years of study and sticking to facts for any speculative thought mean a lot to me, and ring true more than any of the other authors I’ve collected in the last 40 years, especially the 35 since I left catholic studies for the diaconate and became a secular humanist.
I think the interest is completely understandable. If you know more about Jesus’ brother, you’ll obviously know more about Jesus. The problem is that we simply don’t have good sources of information! A couple of comments in Paul and a very slanted portrayal in Acts. Other than that, its a lot of legends. Other than that, I don’t think there’s much good evidence that the Christians supported the cause of the Zealots.
Thank you. Much appreciated.
I’m currently reading “Paul and Jesus” by James Tabor, and he talks A LOT about the “James” form of Christianity that existed for the first 30 or so years after Jesus’ death and that Paul was in competition with. Good stuff…
I’m happy you want some questions. While you were away I did some reading. One was an article published in BAR a while back which presented a rather informative overview of the Library of Alexandria.It contained much information I never knew.
I don’t have the article in my hands as I write but my question is easy to state (actually a few questions:
1. The article said that the library was destroyed when the Arabs conquered Alexandria. However, it was noted that the books in the library were not destroyed but taken back, copied, and many were dispersed.
My question is: Where are these book today? (If anyone knows).
2. Also, the article indicated that there was a school there during the first few centuries after Jesus and that Clement and Origin were a part of this academic group which was influential in the development of early Christian belief and traditions and I recently read that today’s Coptic Christian Church may be a source for understanding early Christian beliefs and practices.
My question is: There seems to be an Egyptian influence on early Christianity (while we often focus more on what happened in Rome)…What is the significance of what happened in Alexandria and Egypt generally regarding early Christian origins?.
I found this Alexandria connection to be very interesting and want to know more about it.
(If you want me to be more specific please let me know. I can look up the article and give more details).
Thank you, Todd
PS: I’m guessing that the nourishing American food you ate on returning is the real cause of your tummy-ache !!!
I”m not familiar with any evidence that Arabs preserved the books in the library and had them copied. But I’d love to know if there is any evidence.
I’ll deal with your other question in a post.
Bart,
I should truly never make any statements without references in hand. Here is what I read:
1). James Tabor posted a link to an article on his blog written by J. Herold Ellens dated 05/01/2013 and titled “The Ancient Library of Alexandria….The West’s most important repository of learning”
I printed out the 28 pages including footnotes and references.
It was published in http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org …I can get the fuller direct link off of James’ Blog if you like.
2). What interested me was this statement:
“Until it was closed in 624 C.E. – when the Arabs conquered Egypt and carried off the library’s treasure-it was the major vehicle by which the learning of the past was kept alive. Not only did the library preserve the ancient sciences, but it proved to be a vital philosophical and spiritual force behind the surprising new worlds of Judaism, Neoplatonism and Christianity.”
What caught my eye was the reference to “carried off the library’s treasure” which I assumed to be the documents.
3.) Later in the article he states, “It was officials with the conquering Arab army who last saw the library in its operational state. Undoubtedly much of it was carried off to their royal libraries.”
There is much more to this than just what I quoted and I read it all many times and noted that I would like your thoughts on this since I am not on the level of a scholar.
If you would like more information please let me know. I can give you my email address.
***I truly appreciate you willingness to comment on the others portions of my questions. I am becoming very interested in this Egyptian / Alexandria connection to the development of Christianity, Where Clement and Origin worked, where the “Lost Books” were found in Egypt (Nag Hammadi, etc), and the Coptic Christian Church has survived to this day. For me, this is a whole new and exhilarating area of study with regard to the development of Chrisitian theology, doctrine, and practices***
Thank you. Todd
Thanks. Very interesting!
At risk of being accused of bias when explaining my views about the bible by citing only you, can you recommend other secular scholarship publications on how the bible was written? I have heard of these two:
Secret Origins of the Bible – Tim Callahan
The Bible Unearthed – Israel Finkelstein, Neil Asher Silverman
Any others?
I don’t think Finkelstein anbd Silverman are “secular.” But it’s a brilliant book. I don’t know the Callahan book, but any book that is about “Secret Origins” already puts up red flags.
I don’t really know of much secular scholarship on the Bible. There is some, but not much. But the fuller answer to your question is that the views that I sketch in my popular trade books for a general audience are the views held by most scholars who are not either fundamentalist or conservative evangelical. There are points where we all differ (not just me against “them,” but all of us with differences from one another), but the basic gist is very much the same. There is little that I’ve written that you would not hear in the best divinity schools and seminaries training ministers in the country. If you have a specific point you’d like bibliography on, though, let me know.
I don’t know how else you can describe Finkelstein except as a secularist. He’s regarded as the leading Biblical minimalist and BAR quotes him as saying:
“The historical saga contained in the Bible—from Abraham’s encounter with God and his journey to Canaan, to Moses’ deliverance of the children of Israel from bondage, to the rise and fall of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah—was not a miraculous revelation, but a brilliant product of the human imagination”
In spite of that maybe he still believes in God, but I’ve never seen him quoted as believing or described as such.
Personally, I think he’s a brilliant archaeologist and out of all the things I’ve read about him or by him nothing would make me think he is anything BUT a secularist.
Very interesting. so let me tell you my view:
I think of a “secularist” as someone who does not believe in God. But I don’t think at all that anyone has to “believe in the Bible” in order to believe in God. On the contrary, I see that as a modern religious myth. Throughout history there have been millions of believers who don’t think the Bible is literally true — infact, apart from some portions of the U.S. in modern times, I’d say that’s been the majority view!
Bart,
Have you ever mused over what Christianity might have looked like without the intervention of Constantine I in 313 and subsequent Roman Imperial sponsorship? Would it have been substantially different in the East than in the West, given the fall of the Western Empire in the 5th century?
It’s a terrific quesiton. And one for which I think there is no reliable answer!
Glad to see you back safe and sound. A simple one for you no doubt. In 1 Cor 15 Paul says –
“3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. ”
Where do you think he got his information from especially on the 500. Many say it could only have come from Peter or James or else he made it up which would be odd.
Interested in your thoughts on this.
I was wondering if you had any intention of responding to the recent book by Richard Carrier and others, “Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus.” I haven’t looked at it yet myself, but I did look at its Amazon page and it seems like quite a substantial tome. I know you have plenty of other demands on your time, but it would be nice if you could present a response to at least some of the points made by Carrier and his co-authors. Silence on your part might well be interpreted as an admission you had no response to offer!
On another note, have you heard anything more about Daniel Wallace and his claim to have found a first-century manuscript of Mark? Supposedly, the find is due to be published very soon.
No, I haven’t responded. As said in my final response to Carrier, these people have boundless energy and seemingly endless time, and it’s like Hercules and the many-headed Hydra; lop off one head (argument) and two more grow back in its place. If anyone can’t read their book and then works written by scholarss who represent the view of the overwhelming majority of everyone else (including experts, and see the difference, then I’m not sure a detailed response is going to matter. What a response like that *would* do is show that they have achieved what they wanted — raised the issue to a level that scholars in the field find it worthy of their time and attention. I’m afraid I accomplished that already by writing the book in the first place.
On Dan: I thought the book was to be published at the beginning of the year. But these things often take longer than expected.
Bart, first of all, I hope you get well again soon!
As for a question: if the pre-‘resurrection’ Jesus and, later on, his earliest (Jewish) followers had declared Jesus to actually BE God then wouldn’t they have been kicked out of the synagogues from the start because of blasphemy? But since that did not happen (Jesus preached in synagogues and his disciples continued to go to synagogues after his ‘resurrection’ for a while) doesn’t that indicate that the earliest Christian belief did NOT contain the claim that Jesus actually was God?
It’s a good question. But I’m not sure we know how Jews reacted to the Christain message, except to say that every reaction that is *recorded* (in Paul and in Acts, and that lying behind Matthew and Joh) is pretty much what you’re describing!
Speaking of the ‘Christian message’, what was it actually at the time? It seems to me like there were (at least) three different messages?
1. The message of the earthly Jesus himself that the Kingdom of God/Heaven is near, that people should prepare, be good to each other, etc.
2. The message of the earliest Christians (the Apostles and other followers) that the crucified Jesus was/is the Messiah, that he has ‘risen’ and that he will come back soon.
3. The message of later Christians and Paul that Jesus was God incarnate in some sense, that he died for our sins and ‘resurrected’ in order to destroy Death etc.
Yup, I ‘d agree. These were all among the messages. And there were more. That’s why some of us like to speak about early Christainities.
I hope you get better soon Bart
Bart, thanks for the invitation to ask general questions, I have 2 which come to mind:
1. You commented in an earlier post that You thought that John’s account of Jesus’s death at passover was certainly made up to fit theological purposes, however the dating of passover is also in other Gospels including Mark which was written first (although the day is different) so are you saying that the passover date is definetely out altogther historically or just John’s version? So do you think that the crucifixion could have happened at any time and not specifically at passover? That surely has major implications as it would mean that Easter is also wrong – and it is normally thought to be accurate (unlike Christmas) or do you think Jesus could have purposely instigated his capture in order to “suffer” at apssover to fulfil Jewish ideology at the time of a suffering messiah which would bring on God’s judgment on the enemies of Israel and foreign invaders, in this case Romans?
2. Could You comment on deutero Isaiah, 40-55, it is thought by Christians that certain passges here relate to Jesus (suffering servant etc), who and when did this understanding take place, was Paul the first to relate these verses to Jesus or do you think the Jesus family and followers also did or could it have gone back to Jesus himself?
thanks, get well soon
Sam
I have heard conflicting accounts of the titles of the early Gospels. Mark Goodacre mention in his NT Podcast that the titles don’t vary from one early manuscript to another. I’ve heard they do vary (probably from you). Which is it? If so, what are the examples of the different titles? Thanks in advance and welcome back. Glad you are safe and sound.
Looking back to June 14 you listed 7 topics you were discussing at the Apocrypha Seminar at the National Humanities Center. I don’t believe we have discussed much of anything on feminism. It seems a broad subject (npi) for rich discussion. Were women disenfranchised later or were they denied any major roll right from the start? Of course, Dan Brown could be brought into the subject!
I have been wondering, for a while, about the Septuagint and its use in the New Testament. It seems obvious that the authors of the New Testament were somewhat familiar with the Septuagint, and quoted from it. How did Hellenized Jews of that period view the Septuagint? Did they ascribe it with similar authority as the Hebrew text?
Why is it that Paul sometimes quotes from the LXX (as in Rom 2:24, 9:27-28, 11:34) and sometimes apparently translates the Hebrew (as in Rom 9:33, 11:35)?
Yes, I think that the Septuagint was held to be authoritative for Hellenistic Jews, just as the English translation is held to be authoritative by many American Christains today. On Paul: I’m not fully familiar with the arguments that some of his quotations are his own translations from the hebrew. One thing to bear in mind is that the “Septuagint” was not one thing but lots of things in Paul’s day, with different renderings, some of them more like the Hebrew than others, and what we call the Septuagint today may not have been the form of the Septuagint known to Paul.
I would like to make a comment (which will probably sound stupid as I am sure many have already figured it out) but if I had collected a lot of stories about a person and put them together into a “biography” I would at least make sure that all the stories were at least somewhat consistent. I don’t understand why the writers of the gospels didn’t make sure their final product made sense – they certainly didn’t seem to have any problems changing things to suit them in many cases. Did they just write down everything they heard without any regard to whether one story or dialog totally contradicted another in the same story? Did they not even care?
I’m delighted to see you have returned safe 🙂 Hope you get to feelin’ better soon! I stopped watching golf tournaments quite some ago because they seemingly made me sick too. Or maybe I was just got sick of hearing about Tiger Woods? 😀
Question, in re John 1:1-2: is it possible that “the Word” refers to, instead of Jesus of Nazareth, something else? FWIW, the more I look at the Greek wording in P66 P75 01 02 03, the more it seems likely to me that “the Word” possibly refers to divine-like guidelines of individual personal conduct and collective good behavior expressed via the words and deeds of Jesus, and of other Jesus-like persons.
Whada’ya think?
I think when you’re interpreting 1:1-2 you have to do so in light of the entire prologue (1:1-18) which was all composed as a single piece (except the two prose insertions about John the Baptist) at a single time by a single author. It’s like a whodonit novel: you may not know who the identity of the murderer is until the end, but once you know it, there is no doubt that he was the murderer discussed at the beginning. The end of the poem (1:14-18) pretty clearly indicates that the Word became a human and that it was Jesus Christ, so I think that must be the reference earlier on. not that Jesus existed before he was born, but that when the pre-existent Word became a human, that was Jesus. I’ll have more sto say about that in my book on How Jesus Became God.
My apologies for the late response. I was hospitalized last Friday (I have a history of major and minor strokes), released Monday evening, and I didn’t have my laptop with me during that period. I’m feeling better now 🙂
You wrote:
“when the pre-existent Word became a human, that was Jesus.”
And that goes to the issue I’m currently exploring: does the term Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ (P66 P75 01 02 03; GNT = ὁ λογος) correctly refer to Jesus of Nazareth, or should it refer to something else? Some thirty (30) pro-Orthodox patristics claim or imply the term refers to Jesus alone, but others indicate it might refer to something else. It’s those “others” which I’m investigating for any further clues.
Although it can be time-consuming and slow, I enjoy performing biblical research from a lower textual criticism perspective. Now, if I can just avoid additional health-related interruptions . . . . .
So sorry to hear about the hospital stay. All best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Re: Your call for questions
I have witnessed your solid debunking of the mythicists’ case, particulary in your book. To be more precise, you have refuted what i would call “pure mythicism”, which takes as one of its tenants the ahistoricity of Jesus of Nazareth and/or his personal centrality to the traditions that became Christianity.
I’d be curiuous about your thoughts on a more nuanced concept — that of some kind of contemporaneous “Christ/Savior” sort of movement among the jewish diaspora of the times (hellenic world, rome) that was already in place when the cult of a Galieean preacher/healer “exploded” in judea/galilee?
Such a theory would go far to explain both the early high christology of Paul (whose ‘conversion” may then have been more about accepting the recent historical incarnation of Christ than about opening his mind to salvific schools of thought); it might also help explain the rapid expansion (especially geographically) of Christianity (the detailed catechism found fertile soil in many places throughout the empire).
I think I must admit the genral structure of these thoughts owes somethign to Crossan, who descrivbed in one of his books the notion of combined movements within Palestine (the preacher with a sacrifical cult). Mine differs in the identity or the putative merger partner, i.e. some kind of midrashic network abroad).
I have been trying to make sense out of N T Wright’s “Israel’s Story” approach to the historical Jesus. I know you have “debated” Biship Wright in the past. Do you have any thoughts on his work – both his “apologetics” (i.e., The Resurrection of the Son of God) and his more recent work (the “King Jesus” stuff)?
He is very smart, witty, and learned. We disagree on point after point, as he tends to take conservative views of scholarship and mount fresh arguments for them — coming, though, to the same old conclusions (not about everything, of course, but about a lot of things). But he is absolutely a top-level scholar. I never read his books for general audiences (scholars tend not to read books for general audiences, unless they’re quoted in them. 🙂 )
Hope you’re feeling better! I’m currently reading your book “Forged”…not sure whether I read this there or in the blog, but it puzzled me. You said the authors of Mark and Luke were not Jews? I’d somehow assumed the authors of all the Canonical Gospels were Jews – among the educated elite, of course, since they could write in Greek.
If I’m remembering that correctly, can you tell us why they’re believed not to have been Jews, and what can be deduced about them? And what about the author of John? (I’m sure the author of Matthew was a Jew, though very dissatisfied with some of his fellow Jews!)
I`m glad you back and i hope you feel better.Take care of yourself the blog can wait.
Prof Ehrman
Unless I just missed it I didn’t see that you blogged about your experience at the American Atheists Association meeting in Austin. How did it go? How were you received? Were you challenged at all re: the historical Jesus? (I understood Mr Carrier and Mr Price were going to be there.) Was it recorded?
Could you discuss the so-called ‘desposyni’ and the idea that Jesus’ biological family was honored in some way by the early church? The gospels seem to be somewht antagonistic to Jesus’ family but all of sudden we find out from Paul and Acts that James is basically in charge. What do you think was going on there?
Ah, I didn’t go! I had a tentative invitation, but in the end they decided not to have me.
I’m not familiar with the term “desposyni” — to you mean “those who belong to the master,” i.e., his blood relatives? The problem is that apart from a few comments about James as being a leader of the church in Jerusalem, and the pious legends about his mother, and the belief that later developed that his brother Jude wrote a book, I’m afraid we don’t have much from early sources for what happened to them all after his death. (Though lots of legends, especially about James and Mary). The fact that they are rebuked by Jesus in the Gospels and generally not portrayed favorably is often read to indicate that they were not followers of Jesus in the early years after his death (except possibly James).
Should we take the story of Jesus’ cousin Simeon heading the church after James seriously?
To my shame, I have to admit that that is ringing only a very distant bell. Do you know where it is discussed? I don’t recall it being in Eusebius or any source earlier than that — but maybe I’m wrong!
According to the ultimate authority on the subject, Wikipedia, Eusebius wrote in Church History, Book III, ch. 11:
After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.
They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.
I find especially interesting the fact that “those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh” were gathered as if the Jerusalem church were a family business.
Right! That’s it. Sorry, slipped my mind. Some have talked about the Jesus “caliphate.” I’m not sure what to make of the tradition, but tend to be dubious about these ancient attempts to “connect the dots” (this person is the brother of so and so, and so on).
Bart,
Since you’re inviting our questions, here’s one I’ve long wondered about. Would it be accurate to say that after Jesus’ death the first-century Christians turned him into an enduring symbol of the very sacrificial system that he himself rejected in life?
By ‘sacrificial system’ I’m referring both to the ancient lamb/goat-based traditions surrounding Yom Kippur, as well as to the later lamb sacrifices conducted by the Jerusalem temple priests during Jesus’ day, etc. And, by the word ‘rejected,’ I’m wondering if Jesus having upset the moneychanger’s tables at the temple was his way of disparaging the very notion of paying money to buy a lamb for a priest to sacrifice in order to atone for one’s sins.
Thanks for any response.
Also, thanks for taking the time on your Israel trip to update all of us on your fascinating experiences there. Welcome back!
In various responses to comments and questions here on the blog, you seem to have implied that some of what would seem to be the more difficult passages of the NT for Christians to swallow had little historical value (for example, Jesus’ poor treatment of his mother, his bigotry towards “the Greeks” or his command that everyone who didn’t want him to be king be slaughtered in front of him.) Yet these would all seem to pass the criteria of dissimilarity. Could you address the gospel traditions that you think portray Jesus in greatest contrast to the modern “Smiling Sunday School” Jesus and what level of historical accuracy can be assigned to each?
I don’t recall ever discussing these passages. Are you sure you found those comments on this blog?
I’m afraid it would take a book to discuss the teachings of Jesus that I think can be assigned to him. Wait a second, I wrote a book on that! (Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.)
What can be said about the historical John the Baptist?
Good question! My friend Joel Marcus is writing a book on John the Baptist. But maybe I’ll commit a sin of simplicity (yet again) and devote a post to the question….
Bart, one more question if I may: why do you think don’t we have more (early) accounts, stories and the like from or about all the actual Apostles themselves? Most of them seem to fade into oblivion after the ‘resurrection’? And could it be connected to the comment in Matthew that some ‘doubted’ the alleged ‘resurrection’ (Mt 28:17)? Meaning that not all of the Apostles or followers were convinced that Jesus was the Messiah and/or had actually ‘resurrected’? Thank you.
When the early Christians began to believe that Christ died for our salvation, were they thinking that he was the blood atonement for Adam’s sin? That he took on the sins of the world so that God punishes him instead of us ( a truly horrible thought)? Or that he became an intercessor between God and us (which makes little sense since they believed he was God, how coul he be an intercessor?)?
All of these beliefs seem to be present in our churches today, in some more than in others. Will you be discussing how these ideas came about in your book?
Bart, in case you’re still looking for topics 😉
Could you explain what you think Paul’s view on the resurrection was?
Because to me it really sounds like he was expecting our current bodies to be left behind, even to be destroyed, so that our souls/spirits could be clothed with a new, ‘spiritual’ body of some sort in order to exist, from that time on, in ‘Heaven’.
These verses seem to confirm this:
2 Cor 5
:1 For we know that if our earthly house, the tent we live in, is *destroyed*, we have a building from God, a house not built by human hands, that is *eternal in the heavens*.
:6 We know that as long as we are *alive here on earth* we are *absent from the Lord*
:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be paid back according to what he has done *while in the body*
He already indicated such thoughts/beliefs in 1 Cor 15 but they seem to have become clearer in 2 Cor 5 (if you can call any of this clear in the first place): a ‘resurrection’, according to Paul, does not refer to a corpse revival on Earth but to the soul/spirit getting a new ‘body’ in Heaven.
What are you thoughts on this? And if you disagree with this interpretation, why? Thank you.
I just had a conversation about this with a fellow NT scholar three days ago. Both of us think that at the end of the day it is impossible to reconcile Paul’s various statements about the afterllife: whether it will involve an altered, glorified body (as in 1 Thess 4; 1 Cor. 15), like the body of Jesus at his resurreciton, or if it involves “going to heaven” and getting a different body (2 Cor. 5 and Phil. 1). Or of the latter is simply an interim state until the former happens. I lean toward that view myself. But his different comments are indeed confusing when placed next to each other. Would that he had written down a systemenatic theology!!
But even 1 Cor 15 does not really imply that the corpses of the deceased get altered and changed!
“What you sow will not come to life unless it *dies* and what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare seed—perhaps of wheat or something else. But God *gives* it a body just as he planned, and to each of the seeds a body of its own.”
Applied to the human body this would mean that the human body has to die (and be destroyed > the soul/spirit leaves the body and moves to the realm of the dead) so that God can give the seed (in this case the soul/the spirit) a new, spiritual, heavenly body (the ‘body that is to be’). The crucial point there is that the old body (the corpse) is not needed for this since the soul/spirit will be immediately raised into this new, better body while the bodies *of those alive* at the Second Coming will be changed:
1 Cor 15:52 For the trumpet will sound and (1) the dead will be raised imperishable ( = the souls of the dead will be called back from the realm of the dead and clothed with these new ‘bodies) and (2) we ( = the living) will be changed for this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
So I really think there is no evidence that Paul thought that to be ‘resurrected’ meant that your corpse would get healed and revived to only then get totally transformed in some way. Or have I missed something?
I think we’ve had this discussion before! (when Paul say: we shall not all die, but we all *shall be changed*, I think that indicates that the body will in fact be changed; and this coincides with 1 Thess 4:13-18: the dead will rise and the alive will follow….)
Bart, correct, we had this discussion before … But I’m not sure if I was able to really make my point:
Yes, bodies will be change BUT *only the bodies of those alive* at the Second Coming! Paul makes a distinction in 1 Cor 15:52 between ‘the dead’ (who will be raised imperishable) and ‘us/we’ (who will be changed). The living obviously don’t need to be raised just as the dead ( = the souls of the deal) don’t need to be changed (since the souls of the dead will immediately be raised into those new, imperishable bodies).
1 Thess 4 seems to point to a *heavenly* post-Second-Coming existence too though: those alive ‘will be suddenly caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we will always be with the Lord’ > no indication that anyone will get back down to Earth and live there, is there?
Also I fail to see where Paul describes this ‘spiritual resurrection body’ as something like ‘the risen Jesus’ from the Gospels. Aren’t you simply supposing a connection or similarity there that doesn’t actually exist?
Proffesor Ehrman
one thing i think i few people may like a post on is the historian Josephus, in particular how reliable is he, was he forged, what do scholars think of him ect.
also who won the golf?
Interesting idea.
Tiger, of course!
oh and maybe a post on the old vs new testament god. the old test god seems so angry and destructive while the new seems full of love and turning cheeks, but a lot of scholars seems to say this isnt the case people just arnt reading deep enough. maybe something about that.
thanks again
OK, I’ll think aobut it. But for anyone who thinks that the NT is not angry and destructive, I always suggest they read the book of Revelation!
Bart, could you (at some point) elaborate on the different views of the afterlife described in the New Testament? It seems that there are two different views there? In the one the ‘resurrected’ will live on a kind of ‘new Earth’ while in the other ‘the resurrected’ will exist in Heaven with God?
Yes, as I said, it’s all very hard to work out consistently.
Professor Ehrman,
I trust I haven’t joined the “ask Bart” fest too late! My question relates to the nature of biblical prophecies. In my fundamentalist years, I bought the party line that many of the prophecies, especially those in Daniel and Revelation, were to find their fulfillment hundreds or thousands of years after their utterance. Now it seems to me implausible that any human author would care about things that are slated to happen way beyond his own lifetime. However, there do appear to be exceptions to my new thinking, at least on the surface. For example, Revelation 20 details what will happen after the Millennial reign of Christ. What are your thoughts on whether far-future prophecies exist in the Bible and whether or not this is an example of such a prophecy? Is some sort of figurative explanation more likely in this case?
My sense is that *most* (the vast majority) of “prophecies” in Scripture are directed to the very near future of the person making the prediction (though, of course, a later millennium is much later! But most of Revelation is about the time of the author, not the distant future. So too Daniel. And especially so too the Hebrew prophets.
I hope I’m not too late for the question fest. I asked this in a private email to you because I could figure out how to ask it here. Sorry for the duplication. I don’t know if you answer this in the book you’ll be releasing on how Christianity became so popular, but …
Having been born in a Jewish-atheist family, I’ve long been aware that Jews don’t seem to ascribe to the concept of ‘original sin’, that is, a congenital state which makes humans unacceptable to god.
My understanding of the Jewish viewpoint is that we’re neither good nor bad, but we can do things that are ‘sinful’ – hence the temple sacrifices (and now, Yom Kippur). My question is, how and when did that transform into the concept of ‘sin’ being an inherent state of humanity which requires a sacrifice to be transmuted (if I can use that word).
Thank you,
I’m afraid I don’t know the answer! I’ll ask around to see if I can find one.
I’m really curious about it because it seems like a pretty major change in world-view (or am I making a mountain out of a molehill?).
Thanks.