Loading...In a post a few days ago I pointed out that people often don’t clearly differentiate between the nuances of words that mean similar but not identical things, and that this leads to misunderstandings.
I posed a challenge then for readers to differentiate between the words:
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
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!
Learn More!
What’s the difference between the Epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel of Barnabas?
The epistle is an anonymous letter written around 130 CE; the Gospel is from the late middle ages and is not an authentic early Christian writing.
Good day Bart. I am currently reading your “How Jesus Became God” and the late Larry Hurtado ‘s similarly titled “How on Earth Did Jesus Become A God?”I have both on my table and am ping ponging between the two, for I am quite the nerd.
Both books are fantastic and come to similar conclusions, but what’s fascinating and relevant to today’s topic is how some cases hinge on very small details! For example, does Paul think Jesus is an Angel or not? It depends on whether or not the statement “As an angel of God, as Christ Jesus” is read as two different ways of saying the same thing or a set of ascending categories.
What determines that? A careful – *careful* reading of the words, structure and context of just that tiny little statement. It’s a small difference, but it makes all the difference in the *world!*
There are several examples of this that result in very different conclusions between your two books. I’ll leave it the imagination as to which of you I found persuasive on that score, but it’s truly fascinating just how important those small details can be.
You scholars have a real gift!
Thanks. Yes, Larry and I agreed on a lot and … disagreed on a lot! He died too young….
Too true. I consider you both to be giants in the field. I learned a great deal from both of your works.
These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.
(1) And he said, “Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death.”
(2) Jesus said, “Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All.”
These secret the spoke Didymus wrote
And whoever interpretation sayings experience.
Jesus him
continue he
he will when troubled
astonished
will the
The will
astonished
troubled
when will he
he continue he
him Jesus
Experience sayings
Interpretation whoever
And
Wrote Didymus
Spoke the secret
These
30) Jesus said, “Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where there are two or one, I am with him.”
(31) Jesus said, “No prophet is accepted in his own village; no physician heals those who know him.”
(32) Jesus said, “A city being built on a high mountain and fortified cannot fall, nor can it be hidden.”
Jesus There!
Gods!
Gods are one with
Jesus
Prophet in village
Heals know
Know heals
Village in prophet
Jesus
With one are Gods
Gods!
There, Jesus!
(81) Jesus said, “Let him who has grown rich be king, and let him who possesses power renounce it.”
Jesus him
Grown king
Him
Power
Power him king
Grown
Him
Jesus
(114) Simon Peter said to him, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.”
Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Simon to Mary
Women worthy
Jesus
Myself
Her to male
She become spirit
Males
Woman
Male
Will kingdom
Kingdom will
Male
Woman
Male
Spirit become she
Myself
Jesus
Worthy
Women
Mary to Simon
I am perplexed at the suggestion that a ‘falsehood’ must be ‘spoken’. Surely a falsehood can be written?
Yes, absolutely. Better to say: communicated?
Are there any scholars who argue that the errors make the Gospels MORE believable because they show they were written by real people and are not intentional fabrications?
Probably not. That would assume that fabricators didn’t make errors.
On another analogy, if the composer of the Letter of James was a literate greek speaking student of James, distressed at reading texts in circulation that he thought were misleading people regarding the “true teaching”, it would still be a deceit regarding the author of the letter, even if it were not a deceit and not even misleading regarding what James would have said on the points in the letter.
That’s right (if I’m understanding you correctly): a false authorial claim is a deceit in itself.
Quick off-topic question (for whenever you might get around to it): can you clarify the difference, or sharpen the distinction, between “the Messiah” on the one hand, and “the Son of Man” on the other? Were, or are, these two completely different figures? Did they merge, or do they remain distinct individuals? Jesus seems to be thought of as both, so there is obvious overlap; but in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, were they thought of as separate entities? I’m fuzzy on how they relate, since their boundaries are a bit blurred in my understanding. (Couldn’t an apocalyptic Davidic end-times Messiah also be seen as a cosmic judge of the earth?)
“Messiah” technically refers to the future “anointed one” — that is, the future king to rule Israel. The “Son of Man” in apocalyptic thinking, was a divine judge of the earth coming from heaving. Some texts, such as 1 Enoch, consider them to be the same individual but they describe two different roles. So too with Christians on Jesus: he is the future judge of the earth (son of man) who will then rule (messiah) Others would see them as two different persons.
It seems to me that there is a theological error in John’s gospel, and I would like to get your thoughts on it in terms of theodicy. In John 1 we have: ” In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. “.
The last sentence says everything that exists came from him and not one thing exists that did not come from him. That means evil, pain, suffering, injustice, unrighteousness and sin had to come from him. And that contradicts the idea of an all-righteous god.
The normal explanatoin is that it was all created good, but was later corrupted, not that it was created evil.
I understand that. But the phrase “All things…” should include later corruption “coming into being ” at a later time as well. All things include evil, pain, suffering, injustice, unrighteousness and sin since those are things. Of course, later theologians came up with the idea that those things didn’t come from the creator, rather, they came from somewhere else somehow. If evil, pain, suffering, injustice, unrighteousness and sin did not come into being from the creator then, obviously, not all things came from the creator. And that contradicts John 1.
It’s referring to the intial creation that was good, it is not saying that creation would forever stay good. If I say that my wife made a beautiful cake I’m not saying anything about whether someone accidentally dropped it on the floor an hour later.
Yes, but if you say “All things done to the cake come through your wife, and without her not one thing is done to the cake” then she is responsible for the cake being dropped onto the floor.
the verse doesn’t speak about “not on thing that is done to the creation” That’s more ore less the point. It is talking about creation, not about what happens after creation. disabledupes{ea336b647c6b473da5eb95dd436b11d3}disabledupes
Dr. Ehrman, I thought I’d try to clarify what I’m trying to say, if I worded this whole thing poorly. I do know that the standard theology is that everything was created fully good and perfect and then the forces of evil came along and messed things up. But where did the forces of evil come from and how did those forces come into being? In the New Testament, we know that “a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit; a good tree can only produce good fruit, and a bad tree can only produce bad fruit”. So, if everything was created totally good and perfect then, like a good tree, it cannot produce anything bad like, for example, evil. In other words, evil would have to have come from outside the Israeli god and outside the Israeli god’s creation. So, if we say that anything that exists came from the Israeli god, as in John chapter 1, then that would have to include evil. I don’t see any other meaning for “All things came into being through him”.
Christians traditionally have argued that God did create good trees that produced good fruit. But others poisoned the trees. In the modern period this is usualy explained as the result of “free will,” without which the human and celestial world could not actually exist.
Hey Bart, I regard the issue of inerrancy as so impossible to be valid, given all we know about the New Testament, that I suspect those claiming to believe in inerrancy are not being honest. One can be a devout believer without buying into inerrancy. Why do you think they cling to it despite all the contrary evidence?
When I held to inerrancy I was trying to be honest. I just COULDN’T see contradictions. It’s weird how blindingly obvoius things to one person are invisible to others (or to the same person at different times of life). But I do have to admit, I think some of my debate colleagues are not genuinely being honest with themselves.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Your example from Matthew which leads to this discussion, also opens the opportunity to ask whether the gospels are attempts to present factual information as an historical account – based of course on stories told about Jesus. Or are they attempts to present mythical stories that have some historical basis. The more I learn the more I lean toward mythical stories.
The authors have substantial knowledge of Jewish culture and writings. They know at least some Aramaic in addition to Greek. They sometimes present geographical errors, e.g. that no lakes in the Gerasene region into which the legion of demons cast into swine could have jumped and drowned. Seems to me a mythical story that Jesus had the power to command unclean demons to inhabit unclean animals. Note in that story there is no explanation why the swine should drowned themselves. Couldn’t the demons have been content to continue living, within animals the Jews considered unclean? Add the symbolism of feeding multitudes and wedding at Cana.
Any research exploring gospels being elaborate myth stories versus historical stories?
Tons of it. Most compellingly first presented by David Friedrich Strauss, The LIfe of Jesus Historically Examined (1835; translated by none other than George Eliot before she started writing novels!). He argued the Gospels were “myths” but he meant that they were conveying “truths” even though the stories didn’t actually happen. Ruined his life. Fired from his university position and … and thank God for tenure these days…
Hello Dr.Bart Erhman
how many assassination attempts were made on Jesus hisstoricly?
Almost certainly none.
Hello Bart. I hope your Thanksgiving was a wonderful one. During our family meal, I was having a discussion with a friend regarding the dietary laws in Deuteronomy, as most of us in the house were digging into a baked ham. It seems that Christians are one of the few religions that eat pork, mainly due to the interpretation of Mark 7 14-23. I have done the gospel comparisons that you have your students do and noticed that inMatthew’s account of this incident, (Matt 15 10-20), the author does not equate what Jesus said to have declared all meats ok to eat, though the author of Mark chose to add that declaration or assumption. The reading in Matthew does not appear at all to be addressing what meats can be eaten, but rather the needlessness of performing cleansing rituals. In your opinion, what do you believe was the point that Jesus was trying to pass along to the Pharisees, and are Christians unknowingly disregarding scripture based on a bad translation or understanding of Mark?
Most Christians today do not think that the laws governing Jewish practice (Kosher, Sabbath observance, Sacrifices, Festivals, Circumcision) are required for Christians. Mark’s Gospel does indicate that Jesus did away with kosher; Matthew takes that part out. I believe most people for most of history (whatever their religion) have eaten pork. Certainly in Jesus’ day it was a staple for those who ate meat (whcih was everyone, when they could; it tended to be expensive)
Hello Bart,
My question relates to errors in the New Testament and Bengel’s criteria that the more difficult reading is preferable to the simpler. Don’t errors almost always make the text more difficult to understand?
Do you mean errors in copying? It depends what kind of errors they are. Sometimes an error makes zero sense and so seems not just more difficult but impossible (as Bengel himself noted); sometimes it makes even better sense (e.g., when a scribe changes a line in Mark to make it conform to the correponding line in Matthew); sometimes both the error in transmission and the “original” form of the text make equal sense…
I have a question. So I’m sitting on my back porch, hoping the sun on this fine December day will help keep me warm, and I was thinking about the birth narrative in Matthew, in that the virgin shall conceive. It’s pretty much a known fact, with the help of scholars and others who are willing to accept the truth, that Isaiah wasn’t saying anything about a virgin conceiving, but rather that it was a young woman who was pregnant. So, is it possible that translator committees are being a bit deceptive when they translate the Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin” when they know that it doesn’t mean that? Would it be a lie? Or falsehood? I am curious as to what you think about this, thank you so much happy Holidays and Merry Christmas
Yes, if a Hebrew Bible translator renders it “virgin” then it’s inaccurate, and presumably the person knows it. Unless she/he is SO convinced otherwise that he/she doesn’t recognize the problem.
“or something programmed by a sentient being”
Oh, my… were actually there now….