Loading...Some think that, in contrast to miracles & martyrdom, the fear of perpetual torment in hell may be what drove the early growth of Christianity. After all, who WOULDN’T want to avoid eternal fiery torture?
Here’s what I said about that in my book Triumph of Christianity (Simon & Schuster)
******************************
I’ve indicated that fire and brimstone preaching won many converts in early Christianity. What about the idea that the stalwart faith of Christian martyrs, the willingness to “die for the truth” had a big effect on ancient people as well? As it turns out, those two were closely related.
The horrors of hell may have been the argument for why people should convert, but
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!
Thank you Dr Ehrman. And Martyrologies continued into the Reformation era, with tales of Catholic and Protestant martyrs. Foxe’s Acts and Monuments may have had a significant impact on the rise of Protestantism in England and elsewhere with its stirring tales of courage in the face of the flames. For example: ‘Be of good cheer, Master Ridley and play the man … ‘ from the account of the execution of bishops Latimer and Ridley in 1555. I feel that martyrs do get a certain amount of kudos that bishops and popes in their ivory towers probably don’t.
Big fan. Longtime blog member. Not a mythicist. Recently watched your interview with Tim O’Neill, History for Atheists. I was disappointed with your response to his question: Could Mark be the only source for the Jesus of Nazareth character found in the Gospels? You laughed it off: We KNOW there are multiple sources. We have Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and his sources, Q, M, and L.
I believe O’Neill’s question was poorly worded. The better question is: Are there at least TWO undisputed, independent, corroborating sources for any one story about the Jesus of Nazareth character found in the Gospels? For instance: Are there two undisputed, independent, corroborating sources which describe Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem on “Palm Sunday”? All four Gospels describe this alleged event but the independence of these four books is disputed.
If no story about Jesus of Nazareth found in the Gospels has at least two undisputed, independent, corroborating sources, then it is possible that the author of Mark invented the Jesus of Nazareth character; other “sources” simply added to it with their own invented stories. This would not disprove Paul’s Jesus, the brother of James, only the stories about him found in the Gospels. Yes?
Ah, that would indeed be a different question. It hinges in part on whether you see John as independent. But the bigger issues is that our criteria esrablishing what Jesus said and did are interested not only in specific sayings/incidents, but in broader, more basic, and more important issues. Just with respect to independent attestatoin, we have VARIOUS accounts, independently attested, of Jesus’ connection with John, is gathering of 12 disciples, his women followers, his preaching of the coming Kingdom, his use of parables, his various kinds of parables (those involving seeds, wealth, etc.) and … and it’s a long list. THat’s a bit hard for people sometimes to get their minds around, but if Luke tells a unique parable about, way, wealth (one not found in the other Gospels), as does Matthew, then Jesus’ telling parables about wealth is independently attested. That doesn’t mean it is necessarily historical, but it provides a bit more evidence that it is. You accumulate enough of these kinds of things and a compelling picture begins to emerge.
(correction to last sentence of above comment): This would not disprove Paul’s Jesus, the brother of James, the wonder worker described by Josephus, but it would cast considerable doubt on the historicity of the stories about this man found in the Gospels. Yes?
James appears by name in multiple independent sources: Paul, Mark, and Acts. It is also independently attested that Jesus’ brothers did not “believe” in him/follow him in his lifetime.
One key to the criterion, of course, is figuring out what’s independent. The stories in these three sources, as well as the name in the epistle to James, I think can be shown as independent of one another.
I have been much taken recently by something you posted Aug 18th 2021. There you wrote “Why did Paul think Faith would bring Salvation.” The steps and the logic of his thinking were very clearly set out and I found your explanation persuasive. However, I wonder if you have ever presented this information with NT references from Paul’s writings such that we can see the build up of your argument underpinned by statements he made when addressing his churches or if this is your own summary of what must have been the case. Many thanks
I’m not sure I have! (AT last with verse references at every point)
Dr. Ehrman,
Your integrated model, developed over this series, is becoming clearer: hell provides urgency, miracles provide credibility, and martyrdom functions as miracle in human form. That is a coherent and serious historical account.
But reading Polycarp’s response to the proconsul, I find myself pausing.
The proconsul threatens him with fire. Polycarp answers calmly. He does not sound like a man under pressure making a difficult calculation. He sounds almost expectant, as if death is not the worst thing that could happen to him, but something closer to a threshold he is ready to cross.
Your model explains well why that composure was persuasive to outsiders. What it seems to leave open is what produced that composure from the inside: why death itself appears to have been experienced differently, not just argued about differently.
That inner reordering, from death as threat to death as awaited encounter, seems to ask for more than urgency plus community plus miracle claim.
Does your framework account for that transformation, or does it explain the conditions under which such transformation became possible, while the transformation itself remains open?
Respectfully,
Tjalling
A former student of mine, Stephanie Cobb, wrote an intriguing book called Divine Deliverance, where she shows that the martyrs are portrayed as actually not experiencing any pain! I, well, personally don’t think that’s historically true. (Either does she!) But it’s how they’re portrayed. So the issue has to do with whether, when talking about the importance of martrys for conversion, is whether we are talking about what REALLY happened or what was SAID to have happened in the stories. Which of these (one of them? both?) brought about conversions? The stories themselves say that it was the historical reality; my sense is that it was probably the stories that people heard.
Within the stories themselves, it is the strong faith in God that produces the calmness. In our earliest account, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, those being flogged so severely that bystanders can see their inner arteries and veins from the stripped away flesh do not even moan. They are fully focused on Christ. Again, seems unlikely to me.
Dr. Bart Erhman, hi. I believe this question is important, can you read it all carefully?
There is a verse where Jesus says, “What kind of father would give his child stones when he asks for bread, or a serpent when he asks for fish?” But thats what YHWH did to the Israelites during the 40 years in the wilderness. Jesus here is refering to that event, and indirectly rejecting YHWH as his Father.
Another example is Psalm 82,
So if YHWH himself says, “You are gods,” and Jesus quotes that verse in john 10;34, then YHWH is admitting that some group were gods. Yhwh would not call demons “gods”
In john 10:34 Jesus is not teaching that there is only one god. He just keeps saying that the Most High one is his Father. Non monotheism means jesus was not jewish.
Also, In Psalm 82, YHWH is hostile to these gods, he says they show partiality to the wicked, and he says these gods will die like men.
If these are true; how come gnostic gospels are rejected from bible?
How come jesus’s stories are told as if he were jewish? (i believe jesus hid he wasn’t jewish)
Jesus was decidely Jewish — born of Jewish parents in a Jewish village and raised Jewish eventually to become a Jewish teacher.
Gnostic Gospels are not included in the New Testament because their views of the divine realm, Jesus Christ, the way of salvation, and most other things stood at odds with what hte proto-orthodox church leaders, who were deciding which books should be in and which ones out, believed.
Thank you. But what do you think about these fallowing things?, “What kind of father would give his child stones when he asks for bread, or a serpent when he asks for fish?” But thats being what YHWH did to the Israelites during the 40 years in the wilderness.
Jesus calling this action as “what kind of father would do that.” While calling his own father as, “if your fathers known to give you good gifts then how much more your heavenly father would give you.” As someone that would instead give much better gifts than earthly fathers. Here one god, yhwh is being called as what kind of father, while jesus calls his own father as much better than earthly fathers. He just isnt refering to the same deity.
I don’t think Jesus is alluding to the Wilderness experience in Numbers. God doesn’t give stones and serpents when the Israelites ask for bread and fish. He punishes them for disobeying and complaining about whtat he provides.disabledupes{8b5322060ce731edd622be44422ac08d}disabledupes
Because martyrdom involves actual human death, I can understand why it would have carried enormous significance in the ancient world — especially if any of the disciples who claimed to have experienced the risen Christ, whatever that experience actually was, suffered martyrdom. If one is deeply convinced of an afterlife, the willingness to die for one’s faith may not be entirely surprising. Such belief could also comfort those who had lost loved ones.
At the same time, belief in an afterlife can be morally complicated. It may console the suffering, but it can also be used to justify injustice or violence. For example, karmic ideas can support social inequalities, as in aspects of the caste system. In an extreme Japanese case, a Buddhist-related cult justified killing opponents by claiming it was better to “poa” them — apparently meaning to kill them and send them to the next life — so they would not commit further evil.
I was also disturbed to hear someone, who is a religeous leader, justify Noah’s flood by saying fewer children would be born into a wicked world.
Your discussion made me think more broadly about religion, death, consolation, and danger.
But martyrs by church tradition go straight to heaven when they die, unlike the rest of the faithful who must wait until the end of time and the return of Christ and the resurrection of the body. The wait, which is taught by Paul (and confirmed by the Anglican theologian and Paul expert N.T. Wright), wasn’t expected to be long for the apocalyptic Paul, but long it is. BTW, the first martyr was Stephen. Some recent NT scholars question whether Stephen was the first martyr. If not Stephen, then who? James. Speculative.
”
But martyrs by church tradition go straight to heaven when they die,” but is that biblical?
only Jesus but he was divine. did James the disciple/apostle or Stephen the deacon?
Revelation 6 suggests it’s biblical.
I now feel that my previous comment was unnecessarily critical of other religions and went beyond the appropriate scope of this blog. Unfortunately, I am unable to delete it, but I would be grateful if you would simply disregard that comment.
Thank you, as always, for your willingness to engage so thoughtfully with our questions. I truly appreciate the time and effort you invest in responding to readers week after week. To be honest, I am continually amazed that you have maintained this practice for so long and with such consistency.
Let me upfront state that I am a practical Catholic. Additionally, that I greatly respect your Scholarship, Professor. I can also attest from my Polish pre-Vatican II indoctrination for 8 years you are spot on, on martyrdom. It was ground into our dna, day in and out. And while I don’t deny or disparage this heritage I have to a degree rationalized what it means. It to a small degree provides me with some insight to islam. Thank you.
I once volunteered for an outfit that provided a wish for terminally ill children. One wanted to meet his favorite WWF wrestling team and the very gracious wrestlers cut off a tour in Korea to fly back and fulfill his wish. In arranging it the manager spoke as if the wresting was real, not a correographed entertainment. When we asked him if we had to go along with the KayFabe, he seemed relieved he did not have to keep up the performance.
That same feeling I get any time I read a piece based on Church fathers. The works by or about those listed in this article, the only extant copies we have anywhere near complete date from many centuries after their deaths. Yet the are cited as if they form a reliable base of information.
When martyrdom is in fashion, martyrs can be maufactured by editing and enhancing the texts. We have evidence of far worse skullduggery than this.
The eyebrow of skepticism remains on high.