Bart Ehrman
COMMENT:
When I bring up the possibility that the original Luke did not have the first two chapters which include the virgin birth narrative, Christians say to me: “How could such a new twist to the story of Jesus have developed so soon in the first century if some of Jesus’ family, disciples, and friends were still alive to verify its accuracy? If Jesus had truly been Joseph’s son, wouldn’t SOMEONE have said, “Hey. Wait a minute. Jesus nor his mother ever claimed that he was the virgin-born son of Yahweh. This virgin birth story is bogus nonsense.”
RESPONSE:
This is an interesting point and one that we should reflect on. As it turns out, it’s one I’ve reflected on it for some thirty years now! (And it is related to what I discuss in my next book on how memory affected the oral traditions circulating about Jesus before the Gospels were written.) It is one of those points that on the surface sounds really convincing: of *course* that’s the case! No one could make up stories about Jesus’ family if his family was there to correct them, right???
Well, I think the answer is actually just the opposite: wrong! Here let me make several points that I do not think are easily refuted.
First, how many people in the first century (since I date the Gospels to the first century) are telling …
First, how many people in the first century (since I date the Gospels to the first century) are telling stories about the virgin birth? We don’t actually know how many Christians there were in, say, the year 90. I wish we did, but we don’t. We do have some ballpark ideas. There are more than 10 and fewer then 10,000, almost certainly. So, let’s pick a number. My guess is that the answer is probably 3000 or 4000. Let’s just be conservative and say 3000.
OK, of those 3000, how many do we know for certain are telling a story about Jesus being born of a virgin. Here there is a clear and certain answer. We know of two. (And that’s assuming that Luke originally had chapters 1-2). What were the other 2998 people saying about Jesus’ birth? We have no way of knowing. I would *assume* that the readers of Matthew and Luke would have agreed with what they read: but when it comes to knowing who was actually telling the stories, we know of only two. How many were telling contrary stories? We have absolutely NO way of knowing.
i found the following from a
nick peters :
“Reply: Actually, Paul isn’t talking about different stories. He’s talking about different views of what is meant. The debate is never over issues about the life of Jesus. Most of these are taken for granted. Also, I do not assume. I go with scholars like Ken Bailey who have directly watched oral tradition going on. In oral tradition, there were always guardians of the tradition who kept it from getting out of hand. Did some different stories rise up? Yes. Many of these came in the second century. Differences in some accounts in the Gospels I think can easily be shown by looking at the fact that Jesus was an itinerant preacher. He would no doubt tell the same story many many times. I’m a speaker and I have used the same sermon at many different churches.”
my questions
1. where in the gospels in there any indication of a policing system on what jesus said and did and where is there proof that the disciples could easily correct incorrect information that was spreading about jesus?
2. if jesus was in competition with other messiah like preachers then isn’t it possible that jesus would be out done ?
3. did jesus’ disciples LIE? according to two authours called matthew and mark, the answer is yes
4. did the twelve according to mark understand what jesus was on about?
5. did the 12 have good memories?
6. what system was employed by nick peters jesus which ensured accuracy? how does peters know jesus used memory skills like the religious jews in his time?
7. how do we know that it isn’t mark who is creating a story which requires a recall of what was said earlier so that it could be understood later when recalled?
8. if stories of a body resurrection was known in pauls times and different versions of it, how is it possible paul does not tell us the following
Paul uses various devices
1 Corinthians is a letter to the Church in Corinth where Paul addresses numerous doctrinal issues. I would generally date it 50 CE +/- 5 years. One can almost see Paul checking off each subject as he covers it—divorce, eating, church worship, gifts, etc. Paul uses various devices in arguing doctrinal points, including the authority of God (7:10), Nature (11:14), Israel’s history (10:1-5), the Tanakh (10:7), Jesus events (11:23-27) and, of course, his own presentation of arguments. In short, Paul freely uses whatever means necessary to make his point.
Paul provides no DETAILS
In 15:3-7 he reiterates a tradition he previously provided to the Corinthians, listing appearances of Jesus post-mortem, concluding with Jesus’ appearance to Paul. He provides no details as to when, where, how, what time, what was said (if anything) other than a chronological order. He does not record a Damascus road experience. When Paul indicates he saw Jesus (9:1), he gives no indication of Jesus’ form. Was it a vision? Was Jesus a physical body? Was it even on earth, or was it when Paul was transported to heaven? (2 Cor. 2:12). As you know, a theme in Jewish writing of the time involved heroes travelling to heaven, such as the Book of Enoch.
Pauls argument
First Paul argues there must be a resurrection (15:12-34). It would appear some Corinthians were following the Sadducee (or other pagan) principle of no resurrection at all, otherwise, why would Paul spend the time on the topic? Raising the interesting question as to what WAS being declared in the early church regarding resurrection if…20 years after Jesus death…there was this divide on such a foundational doctrinal point. Additionally, vs. 29-30 indicate Paul encouraged people being baptized for the dead, and this ceremony would be useless if there was no resurrection, giving more insight to how little we know about the initial teachings and practices of Christianity. (Additional questions—how big was the Corinthian church? 5? 50? 100? Was it made up of Jews, God-fearers, Gentiles? Slaves, landowners, merchants? We simply do not know.)
why are gospel Details missing from paul’s arguments?
Here is the real sticking point for me. Paul demonstrates throughout his letter he is willing to use numerous tools to make his point—including events in Jesus’ life. Paul indicates he received the 1 Cor. 15 tradition and it is often argued (and been argued in this blog) he received it from Peter and James when visiting Jerusalem. Gal. 1:18. And…it has been argued…they MUST have discussed the resurrection appearances.
Now if Paul knew of the resurrection accounts as recorded in the gospels—why ever would he not mention them here? You want to know what a resurrection body looks like? “Why,” says Paul, “Let me tell you what Jesus was like.” Then Paul could describe how Jesus’ post-mortem resurrection body could walk, talk, teleport, retain knowledge, touch, see, hear, be touched, eat, float, breath, retain scars, make a fire and cook.
Under my methodology, it would be more convincing to a neutral determinate that in 50 CE, Paul was required to make an argument for why resurrection had to exist at all, and then a convoluted (and still controversial) argument for what a resurrection body would be. Subsequently the belief it was a spiritual resurrection morphed into a physical resurrection, and the legendary elements surrounding the claimed physical resurrection developed through the chronological gospels. It is why the differing accounts exist.
It is not convincing to claim Paul would know of the canonical gospel appearances, and completely ignore them in arguing for resurrection and for what a post-resurrection body would be like
“there were always guardians of the tradition who kept it from getting out of hand.”
so do we have any proof that peter said to simon that he corrected misquotations and misinterpretations of jesus’ sayings? did he say how he and his unknown friends went to every synagogue in israel to police what was being said about jesus?
peters wrote :
Did some different stories rise up? Yes. Many of these came in the second century.
quote:
I quite agree with your statement, “If women were witnesses, then it would be unreasonable to assume Paul omitted this point…for nearly the space of two years.” Pretty big “IF.” If they were not (as I contend) then it is quite reasonable Paul would omit this point, as he has no knowledge. Staying consistent within this small method—it is reasonable Paul would know of Jesus’ physical appearances, yet omit the point when arguing for what a resurrection body would be like? Is it reasonable Paul knew Jesus’ resurrection physical abilities yet when describing what a post-resurrection body was like Paul would use every tool in his belt such as tradition, analogy (seeds and clothes), church practices (baptism for the dead), and argument (“our faith would be in vain.”)? But not the far more simplistic act of describing Jesus’ body? Something—under this method—it would be unreasonable to assume he omitted for nearly two years.
comment: maybe the reason paul does not mention the physical appearances because the stories were getting out of hand and paul had to address a completely different version of the story which did not have physical appearances?
Did some different stories rise up? Yes. Many of these came in the second century.
Given the standard dating of early Christian literature, most of our literary sources about Jesus come from the end of the first century, not too long before the early second century, in which apocryphal tales of Jesus flourished. From a historical perspective, I don’t see how you can have any confidence that the late first century sources preserve only true recollections about Jesus, but that early second century sources are apocryphal.
I think it’s reasonable to think that earlier sources are less likely to have apocryphal material. That’s why I’m generally more skeptical of John than of the synoptics. But there isn’t a magical “second century line” that differentiates apocryphal from historical recollection.
I’m not going to address any of your question to avoid saying anything Bart hasn’t already covered about the book here on the blog. I’ve read it already and don’t want to ruin anything. Bailey is a theologian and he’s one of those who let’s his religion slant his viewpoint. Just wait, read Bart’s book, and I think several of your questions will be answered. Regardless of Nick Peter’s comment, as should be clear from the several posts Bart made on his new book already, he states fact regarding different people’s research and not assumptions.
If you do an on site search for Kenneth Bailey you’ll see his name pops up 3 times over the past few years. Bart is far from the only one who finds issues with the many unfounded statements Bailey has made.
Adam Beaven said
i found the following from a
nick peters :
“… I go with scholars like Ken Bailey who have directly watched oral tradition going on. In oral tradition, there were always guardians of the tradition who kept it from getting out of hand.”
I’m guessing he must mean Bailey witnessed (studied?) instances of oral tradition, but I’m not sure how that tells us anything about
ancient oral tradition. First, there certainly must have been a time before “guardians of the tradition” were considered necessary, but that also assumes the guardians always have the most accurate details. Bart’s example of the game of telephone gives us a useful
way to think about oral tradition. IF the game were played with an important message, someone would soon realize there was considerable corruption during transmission. It would be an interesting experiment to set up a game of telephone in a way that would better resemble the conditions in question a large group perhaps with linguistic/ cultural barriers over a much smaller period of time
with and without “guardians of tradition” to see how well the message fairs.
Fortunately we have good evidence of what happens even when we have “transcripts made at the event and published in newspapers,” ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Did some different stories rise up? Yes. Many of these came in the second century. Differences in some accounts in the Gospels I think can easily be shown by looking at the fact that Jesus was an itinerant preacher. He would no doubt tell the same story many many times. I’m a speaker and I have used the same sermon at many different churches.”
In the context of his argument, this seems to be a curious statement, On the one hand there are “guardians of tradition”; yet not only do differences “rise up” but they clearly persist over time and “get out of hand” very early despite the efforts of guardians of tradition. I’m not sure how one could argue that the oral transmission is better for one set of details over another SOMEHOW
“different stories” versus details of Jesus life which of course, are “taken for granted”
Of course things that are “taken for granted” don’t need to be preserved since they are readily assumed
I agree with you, spiker. At what point would the guardians of oral tradition be alerted to begin guarding? Seems it would only be long after events actually occurred unless there was sky writing saying pay attention NOW to the following speeches, they will become important in the future and assign someone to make sure they are repeated correctly. If the sources for the gospels and the gospels themselves are divergent, those guardians weren’t doing such a great job. Bit if a skeptic here.
magpie said
I agree with you, spiker. At what point would the guardians of oral tradition be alerted to begin guarding? Seems it would only be long after events actually occurred unless there was sky writing saying pay attention NOW to the following speeches, they will become important in the future and assign someone to make sure they are repeated correctly. If the sources for the gospels and the gospels themselves are divergent, those guardians weren’t doing such a great job. Bit if a skeptic here.
Zactly, Dude!
Yes. Many of these came in the second century. Differences in some accounts in the Gospels I think can easily be shown by looking at the fact that Jesus was an itinerant preacher.
nobody ever talks about alcohol having effect on jesus’ mind.
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”
spiker said
magpie said
I agree with you, spiker. At what point would the guardians of oral tradition be alerted to begin guarding? Seems it would only be long after events actually occurred unless there was sky writing saying pay attention NOW to the following speeches, they will become important in the future and assign someone to make sure they are repeated correctly. If the sources for the gospels and the gospels themselves are divergent, those guardians weren’t doing such a great job. Bit if a skeptic here.Zactly, Dude!
Bart did a better job demolishing tis idea in his post on his becoming a Muslim:
When it comes to the historical Jesus, some conservative Christian scholars argue that you could not have rumors about him floating around that were not true while there were still eyewitnesses available in order to verify or disverify them. So, according to this widely held (but highly problematic) view, no one could say that Jesus did x, y, or z or that he taught x, y, or z or that he experienced x, y, or z during his lifetime, since the disciples were there to correct the false information.
That is absolutely and demonstrably WRONG. The rumor about me that I’ve been discussing has been floating around for a while, and anyone on the planet, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Jainist, whatever could ask me if it’s true. Has anyone? Just one person. And we’re in the age of electronic communication. Imagine what it was like in the first century Roman empire!
And one has to add another factor people with pet theories. Consider Bob the peasant is telling his version of the water to wine miracle. Bob thinks this is an awesome story. Maybe James is there and says, Bob that’s really not what happened, I was there
and James sets the record straight.
Of course, since Peasant Bob is enamored of his story and enjoys telling it, he is not real happy with James and claims that James is completely full of it and just likes to ridicule people with different opinions. After all, he can detect an undercurrent of disdain in James response and so Peasant Bob chastises him for his comments that are beneath the dignity of the subject.
Kazibwe Edris said
Yes. Many of these came in the second century. Differences in some accounts in the Gospels I think can easily be shown by looking at the fact that Jesus was an itinerant preacher.
nobody ever talks about alcohol having effect on jesus’ mind.
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”
Quoting that one verse from Matthew or Luke takes it out of the context in which the statement needs to be considered. In Luke the verse is in chapter 7 and the chapter is one long admonition starting with verse 18 (your quote is from verse 34). In these verses Jesus is admonishing the people of his generation. The way I take is that he’s telling those listening to him that they don’t understand what they see. They see John the Baptist as a prophet, but what they don’t see is that he’s the one to precede the Son of Man even though, Jesus says, it is written “I will send my messenger ahead of you”. To me he’s saying the people of his generation are not satisfied with what they get or completely misunderstand what happens around them. “they are like children…calling out to each other…’we played the pipes for you but you did not dance’ “. John the Baptist’s eating habits were so extreme that they went even beyond what was called for in the Law of Moses so they he was possessed by a demon for eating what he does. They do this because they do not understand. The say Jesus is ‘a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners’ because of what he supposedly does. They do this because they do not understand. They are children who cannot recognize the Son of Man.
Maybe it’s also possible he’s saying what he says about himself because there were Pharisees present. They had very strict interpretations of the Law so perhaps his statement was an intentional dig at them.
spiker said
spiker said
magpie said
I agree with you, spiker. At what point would the guardians of oral tradition be alerted to begin guarding? Seems it would only be long after events actually occurred unless there was sky writing saying pay attention NOW to the following speeches, they will become important in the future and assign someone to make sure they are repeated correctly. If the sources for the gospels and the gospels themselves are divergent, those guardians weren’t doing such a great job. Bit if a skeptic here.Zactly, Dude!
Bart did a better job demolishing tis idea in his post on his becoming a Muslim:
Indeed Bart did. It is usually considered respectful to make sure that what one quotes is clearly identified. Especially so when one can’t take it as a given that someone has read Bart’s new blog post. Thus:
Bart:
”When it comes to the historical Jesus, some conservative Christian scholars argue that you could not have rumors about him floating around that were not true while there were still eyewitnesses available in order to verify or disverify them. So, according to this widely held (but highly problematic) view, no one could say that Jesus did x, y, or z or that he taught x, y, or z or that he experienced x, y, or z during his lifetime, since the disciples were there to correct the false information.
That is absolutely and demonstrably WRONG. The rumor about me that I’ve been discussing has been floating around for a while, and anyone on the planet, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Jainist, whatever could ask me if it’s true. Has anyone? Just one person. And we’re in the age of electronic communication. Imagine what it was like in the first century Roman empire! ”
And one has to add another factor people with pet theories. Consider Bob the peasant is telling his version of the water to wine miracle. Bob thinks this is an awesome story. Maybe James is there and says, Bob that’s really not what happened, I was there
and James sets the record straight.
Of course, since Peasant Bob is enamored of his story and enjoys telling it, he is not real happy with James and claims that James is completely full of it and just likes to ridicule people with different opinions. After all, he can detect an undercurrent of disdain in James response and so Peasant Bob chastises him for his comments that are beneath the dignity of the subject.
Oh, dear, spiker – mockery does not become you….
Adam Beaven said
Bart Ehrman
If Jesus had truly been Joseph’s son, wouldn’t SOMEONE have said, “Hey. Wait a minute. Jesus nor his mother ever claimed that he was the virgin-born son of Yahweh. This virgin birth story is bogus nonsense.”
Somehow this thread escaped my notice earlier. Seems to me that there are multiple unstated assumptions. First, this seems to assume that people stop telling a story when faced with disconfirming evidence. Try telling creationists about all of contrary evidence and see how far you get.
Kazibwe Edris said
i think in honour shame culture joseph would not relay to others that mary was found pregnant before marriage. or maybe i am wrong?
Why would Joseph have anything to fear from a shame culture? If a man found his betrothed to be pregnant, it sounds like SHE
would be shamed and he would probably get a lot of sympathy, but why is Joseph the source of the story? Any number of people
might have been the source of the story: Mary’s family, friends etc or maybe the whole thing was made up
Lawyerskeptic said
Somehow this thread escaped my notice earlier. Seems to me that there are multiple unstated assumptions. First, this seems to assume that people stop telling a story when faced with disconfirming evidence. Try telling creationists about all of contrary evidence and see how far you get.
ROTFL!
Adam B asked
“wouldn’t SOMEONE have said, “Hey. Wait a minute. Jesus nor his mother ever claimed that he was the virgin-born son of Yahweh. This virgin birth story is bogus nonsense.”
Are we sure this didn’t happen? The more likely thing here is that if that ever happened, people who believed the whole virgin story would more likely accuse them of lying with all kinds of ulterior motives. Facts are waaay too boring for most people. But the larger question is whether Mary et al would have been alive when the virgin stories were circulating. Prof Ehrman has suggested that Luke did not originally contain the birth narratives. Consider that Mary was probably in her late 40s or more at the crucifixion and that Luke and Matthew may have been written some forty years after that far from Mary’s ears. The Christian assumption that everything would have been immediately corrected and straightened out is wishful thinking without a shred of evidence and is stuck trying to explain the existence of heretical versions
It seems that there was no oral tradition about Jesus in the vein of oral mythology or oral scripture. Christianity, it seems to me, is fairly unique in its uncontrolled spawning of ideas about who or what Jesus was. To me this is the clearest indication of a historical Jesus, as opposed to it being mythology.
If we see Jesus as an End of Days preacher, then there probably was more of an emphasis on his message then on his life story (though that may have been a part of his message). Only as a generation began to die off did people suddenly seem impressed with the idea of preserving the life of Jesus in writing.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert