Loading...This Saturday at 3:00 p.m. I will be giving a live lecture (via Zoom) on an intriguing topic that very few people I”ve ever met (including New Testament scholars) have ever delved into: What did early Christians think Jesus was doing between the time of his death and his resurrection.
This is the third and last lecture in my series on Jesus according to the Christians. You do not have to have been at either of the others to come or to understand this one — it is a stand alone lecture, with a good ole Aristotelian beginning, middle, and end.
All the funds we bring in will go to help pay for blog expenses, so we can continue to give every dime of membership fees and regular donations to the charities we support. The fee for the lecture, if you have not already paid for it, is $10. We accept more than the requested fee of course!
This week’s event will last for about 75 minutes. I will lecture for 45-50 minutes and then take questions for 15 -20.
ALSO: I am offering the HIGHEST BIDDER an additional 30 minutes with me after the lecture, one-on-one, just the two of us. See more information below.
Here’s the full scoop on the event:
June 12 (3:00 Eastern) Lecture Three. The Missing Days: Where was Jesus Between His Death and Resurrection?
In the Gospels Jesus was crucified and buried on a Friday afternoon but was not raised from the dead until Sunday morning. Where was he in the meantime? Did he simply cease to exist? Did he go down to Hades like everyone else? If so, what was he doing there? Later Christians described those fateful days in books that did not make it into the New Testament, but that were highly influential on Christian thinking for centuries. Ever hear of the Harrowing of Hell? You will in *this* lecture!
The lecture will be on Zoom. Getting the link is very simple. :
- If you have NOT ALREADY made your donation for the lecture, first do so. Go to the blog site and at the bottom of the landing page and you will find two donation options: PayPal or Stripe (the latter is for credit cards).
- If you’ve already paid, or have just now paid: Send an email to Diane Pittman, our head of operations, at [email protected] indicating the amount you have paid.
- Diane will then send you the link for the lecture.
Easy schmeazy. We’re obviously on the honors system here. But since we are talking about the NT, you know what happens to those who cheat. If you don’t, read Acts 5:1-11. 😉
IN ADDITION: Would you like to have a 30-minute one-on-one with me after the lectures? That opportunity will go to the highest bidder. Would you like the chance? Bidding starts at $200. Send your bid to [email protected].
I very much hope you can come to the lecture. If you know others who might be interested — family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances — please let them know as well. I will try to make the talks as informative and interesting as I can.
What do you think about Jean Carmignac’s theory that the Synoptics were originally composed in Hebrew?
I think it is fairly easily disproven. If they were written in Hebrew and then all translated into Greek, you couldn’t explain why they agree word for word in GREEK. (Check out any two translations of any novel. They never have exact word for word agreements, let alone ones that go on for sentence after sentence).
I suppose one could argue that Mark was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic and then translated into Greek. Then the Greek Mark was used as the source for Matthew and Luke.
I can’t imagine how such a theory could be substantiated. Since all we have is the Greek, we’d have to look for grammatical and syntactic “Aramaicisms” making their way into the Greek. If they could be found and documented, that could also suggest that the author of Mark wasn’t a native Greek-speaker but was nevertheless writing in Greek.
But positing an Ur-Mark in Hebrew/Aramaic is sheer speculation. I also wouldn’t see the significance. It was the “Greek” Mark that became a Christian document.
My $.02
Some certainly have argued this, but there are linguistic reasons for thinking that Mark is an original Greek composition. Apart from sophisticated philological analyses that only experts can evaluate, you’d have to explain why, if it was written in a semitic language, Mark sometimes quotes a saying of Jesus in Aramaic and then translates it into Greek. If all that was in Aramaic then his “translation” would be the same as the saying itself (“Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani; which translated means Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani!”)
An off topic question:
Dr. Ehrman,
Have you read Dr. Jason Staples new book about Israel? I was listening to the newest Mythvision video,and he said Dr. Staples was a student of yours,if I’m not mistaken.
It was his dissertation which I directed. (!)
I was just asking this same question!
Can’t wait!
What intrigues me more than where was Jesus between death on cross and resurrection is where was he between resurrection and ascension. Y did Jesus only make fleeting visits with his deciples? If he was flesh and blood, how did he enter a locked room containing his desciples? Where did he eat and where did he sleep at night? Y didn’t he drop in on Pillat? Y didn’t he return to temple and preach? Y didn’t he confront Senheden and high priests? Y didn’t he resume his ministry? Had he done all these things would not his teachings have spread like wildfire?
I was not able to make these lectures. Is there a way to buy a recording?
We’re deciding what to do with them. We’ll let everyone know!
Dr. Ehrman,
I’m in the midst of a back and forth with someone. I’ve identified 4 places in Paul’s undisputed letters where Anastasis (to stand up) is used to refer to the resurrection of Jesus, are these ok as examples of that?
Romans 1:4, Romans 6:5 , 1 Corinthians 15:21, Philippians 3:10
The easiest way to get this kind of information is just to use a Greek concordance. Yes, all these four work.