As of 2011, there were 2 billion Christians in the world.
(This is a 2004 course.)
It is hard to know what Jesus said and did.
The four gospels are problematic for historians.
The religion that Jesus proclaimed turned into a religion about Jesus. The religion about Jesus is rooted in the belief about the death and resurrection for the salvation of the world.
Saint Paul 10 – 64 C.E. He died in the year when there was the great fire of Rome during Nero’s reign.
Pick up at 24:33 (This is not my first time going through this material.)
Basically all ancient texts (religious or otherwise) are problematic to some extent. It is hard to know with certainty what any ancient historical figure said and did, even monarchs. Socrates is perhaps the most influential philosopher in history–we have nothing written by him (could he write?), and we know the dialogues of Plato and Xenophon are not verbatim records of what he taught (and in fact may be deliberately falsified to showcase ideas of the authors by putting them in Socrates’ mouth.)
It is a good point that Jesus’ radical Judaism became a religion about him, but he did seem to place great significance on his role in somehow inaugurating the coming Kingdom that never came.
We don’t know what year Paul died–you can’t selectively decide which ancient sources we can’t verify are accurate. Historians are far from sure when or how Paul met his end. Maybe he died in ’64, maybe as late as ’67. We’re pretty sure the fire was in ’64. That was a far more significant event at the time than the execution of a minor troublemaker.
I assume there’s a point somewhere in your post, but I can’t find it. You are not a figure from ancient history, so I can ask for clarification, and I do.
godspell
We don’t know what year Paul died–you can’t selectively decide which ancient sources we can’t verify are accurate. Historians are far from sure when or how Paul met his end. Maybe he died in ’64, maybe as late as ’67. We’re pretty sure the fire was in ’64. That was a far more significant event at the time than the execution of a minor troublemaker.
I assume there’s a point somewhere in your post, but I can’t find it. You are not a figure from ancient history, so I can ask for clarification, and I do.
Steefen
I direct you to pass on your comments about the year of Paul’s death to Prof. Bart Ehrman who provided the information and you can tell him you cannot find a point in his Lecture #1. You can also tell him he is not a figure from ancient history and ask him for clarification why he put Paul’s death at 64 CE, not ’64 CE (what is that 1964, 1864).
Can we please see the quote where Bart said there is zero doubt Paul died in 64 CE? (the apostrophe is neither here nor there, and we all know which 64 is being referenced). Obviously it’s possible Paul died that year, and I doubt very much Bart has ever done more than mention it as a possible date of death, based on what he’s written about Paul that I have read.
Paul is believed to have died after the fire, but before Nero was killed, which fixes it somewhere between 64 and 67. How hard is that to understand?
You didn’t explain what point you were making when you started the thread, which would suggest you don’t have one and the Bart quote is an attempt at deflection. Never mind when he died–what are you trying to say?
Picking up Lecture 1 at 24: 33
249 CE Christianity was first considered illegal
Christianity has a canon of scripture, a creed, practices of worship, and a church structure.
Lecture 2
The Most Important Person for Western Civilization:
1st Place: Alexander the Great
2nd Place:
3rd Place:
4th Place:
Tied for 5th Place: Jesus and Paul
The etymology of cult is cultus deorum (care of the Gods).
The ancient common sense was there were many gods.
Religion was not about securing the after-life.
Religion sought the pax deorum, the peace of the Gods [the peace of the geological gods]. The gods did not demand exclusive devotion. There was prayer and sacrifice of animals. The people would get the edible part of the animals, God would get the inedible part of the animal.
Ethics was not part of religion. Ethics was part of philosophy. Correct doctrine was not part of religion (ancient pagan religion).
Religions were tolerant of other religions.
People needed to worship the state god. Failure to worship the state god would be a political act.
Pick up at 21:17
Lecture 2 (continued)
Judaism at the beginning of Christianity
7% of the Roman Empire
There is divine favor and there is divine wrath, so be religious to get more favor and to get less wrath.
Some Jews were monotheists and some Jews were henotheists.
Jews had Jewish scriptures and covenant. Pagans did not have fixed literature for common use. Pagans did not have a legal agreement with gods.
Not only did God give us a covenant, laws, and identity, but a Constitution and a vacation day during the week.
Some Jews sought law, some sought purity, some were apocalyptic. What kind of Jew was Jesus?
Pick up at Lecture Three for the answer.
godspell said
Henotheism had completely died out in Judaism, centuries before the birth of Jesus. It was a transitional stage between polytheism and monotheism. To believe in angels and demons is not the same thing as believing in other gods.
Feel free to correct Dr. Bart Ehrman on that or cite scholarship more recent than his The Great Courses presentation.
Lecture Three: The Historical Jesus
There are radically different understandings of who Jesus was by scholars.
I have a 24-lecture course on this subject.
The nature of our sources is the crux of the problem.
If you look at non-Jewish and non-Christian sources/literature in the Roman Empire (30 CE to 100 CE)
Jesus is not there.
4:30
Look at works of
poets
natural scientists
philosophers
religion scholars
personal letters
inscriptions put up on buildings
Jesus is never mentioned.
What were his enemies saying about him? We have no idea.
Jesus is not mentioned by a pagan source until 112 CE–Pliny the Younger writing to Trajan.
Josephus in the first century wrote about Jesus.
This is the only reference to Jesus by non-Christian sources.
Paul talks little about Jesus’ life.
The 4 gospels are anonymous [despite Richard Bauckham]. They were not written by eyewitnesses. They were written in Greek (not Aramaic, the language of eyewitnesses) [if there were a historical individual in the late 20s/early 30s to witness]–decades later, with John being written in 90 or 95 CE, that is 60 years after the [alleged] events.
Where did these writers get these stories about Jesus?
Answer: Oral Tradition
Response: Oral Tradition. Well, there was no Oral Tradition of what truly happened in the late 20s / early 30s with an alleged Jesus in Jerusalem or Galilee in 69 – 70 CE.
The gospels were not intended to be objective descriptions of historical facts.
If stories change with the retelling and more retelling of decades of Oral Tradition from “actual events” in the late 20s /early 30s, the earlier gospels are probably more accurate than the later gospels [and Acts].
John is 30 YEARS after Mark, therefore, Mark is likely to be more authentic than John [again, despite Richard Bauckham].
Jesus appears to be an apocalyptic prophet similar to the apocalypticism found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Apocalypticism: belief that the present age was ruled by forces of evil, and that God would soon overthrow them in a cataclysmic act of judgment to bring in a utopian Kingdom ruled by his own messiah.
[For Jesus to be an apocalyptic prophet, he would have had to acknowledge who ruled Judea. Answer: Emperor Tiberius. Tiberius would have to be a force of evil. God needed to overthrow Tiberius and bring in a utopian messiah-ruler, not only of Judea, but knocking off Rome’s ruler, Rome would need a new ruler also.]
Pick up at 17:30.
What is your basis for saying there was no oral tradition?
If we reject the gospels for not being attempts at serious objective history in the modern sense, we have to basically throw out everything we think we know about the Roman world. Maybe Tiberius was made up too! In point of fact, most historians of ancient Rome believe many stories we have of the Roman emperors are dubious. And of course, the Roman emperors were treated as gods after their death.
Historians of Rome often use the gospels as primary sources, even when not writing about Christianity. They are considered invaluable primary sources. And as with all such sources, historians have to learn to evaluate each piece of information. It’s never “This is all true” or “This is all false.”
Which you’d understand if you’d ever studied history.
godspell said
What is your basis for saying there was no oral tradition?If we reject the gospels for not being attempts at serious objective history in the modern sense, we have to basically throw out everything we think we know about the Roman world. Maybe Tiberius was made up too! In point of fact, most historians of ancient Rome believe many stories we have of the Roman emperors are dubious. And of course, the Roman emperors were treated as gods after their death.
Historians of Rome often use the gospels as primary sources, even when not writing about Christianity. They are considered invaluable primary sources. And as with all such sources, historians have to learn to evaluate each piece of information. It’s never “This is all true” or “This is all false.”
Which you’d understand if you’d ever studied history.
IGNORE because as usual, you have yet to prove yourself as someone with whom I want to have a polite discussion let alone someone with whom I want to think out loud or with whom I want to study Christianity. There are consequences to your objectionable behavior.
Bart
The Kingdom of God is at hand.
People could be brought into the Kingdom. People could be removed from the Kingdom.
Steefen
The Kingdom of God just shows up in a territory of the Roman Empire.
The God of Jesus just throws up a kingdom in an Empire of other Gods, Gods of Rome.
Bart
This real kingdom would be brought by God’s messenger, Son of Man.
Steefen
Bart mistakenly jumps ahead to Part II of Jesus’ teaching where the third person Son of Man comes on the clouds of heaven. Bart jumps over the first person Son of Man who can be beheld just by looking at Jesus.
Bart
People who are first will be last. People in Power will be taken out of power and vice versa.
Steefen
So, Rome, sponsor of client kingdoms will be taken out of power and the client kingdoms, Judaea, of all other client kingdoms shall be first with its Son of Man.
That is apolitical and anarchy, politically inept.
Bart
Jesus took his message to Jerusalem not until the last week of his life.
Steefen
The closer Jesus got to the political realities he and his god ignored, the more practical realities weighed in on his ideals.
Bart
He went there during the Passover,
Steefen
when not only dwellers of Jerusalem would be there but when the diaspora would have had traveled out of religious obligation to this religious holiday.
Bart
Jesus offended religious and civil Jews there because destruction would be aimed at Romans and Jews. Jesus was judged a trouble maker and turned over to the Roman governor who crucified him.
Pick up at Lecture 4: Oral and Written Traditions about Jesus
Lecture 4: Oral and Written Traditions about Jesus
Christianity is not the religion Jesus proclaimed, it is the religion that proclaims Jesus.
Traditional Christianity – the death and resurrection of Jesus brought about the salvation of the world
So, the apocalyptic message of Jesus was transformed into the apocalyptic message about Jesus.
It is difficult for historians to say the resurrection of Jesus is an historical event.
The accounts of the resurrection are contradictory. List of everything that happened in the four gospels.
Who went?
What did they see?
What were they told?
What did they then do?
Example:
In Matthew, the women are told to tell the disciples to go to Galilee.
In Luke, the women are told to tell the disciples to stay in Jerusalem.
Historians can establish what probably happened.
Miracles are highly improbable.
The resurrection would have been a miracle.
Pick up at 9: 42.
This is not a problem for historians like Bart, who don’t believe everything in the gospels happened, and can explain how people would garble and add to the story over time.
It’s a huge problem for conspiracy theorists who believe the Romans started Christianity, since the Romans would have kept the story a lot straighter.
Bart has done a far better job describing inconsistencies in the gospels–he does it all the time. What purpose do these posts of yours serve here? I feel like I’m watching John Stossel explain how Pro Wrestling is fake. We know, already. But it still exists, and it wasn’t created by the Romans either. (Though I guess gladiatorial contests could be considered a distant ancestor).
Well, the problem here is that the followers of Jesus and the followers of Paul could not have thought or taught resurrection because the massive destruction had not yet happened.
Because Jesus taught massive destruction before the reign of the Son of Man, the followers of the biblical Jesus could not have thought Jesus had been resurrected except for “I will rebuild the Temple in three days.”
“I will rebuild the Temple in three days” is not the reign of the Son of Man post-massive destruction.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)