Loading...The previous two posts explained why scholars have such difficulty using the Gospels as historical sources, as explained by early Christianity scholar Marko Marina (see more about him here: https://tragoviproslosti.eu/about-me/). This primer was mean to set the stage for the eight lectures given by a range of internationally known historical Jesus scholars at our New Insights Into the New Testament conference at the end of September.
Marko ALSO provided overviews of what the lectures would be about and why he thought the topics were important. Here is what he said about the first four (to be continued in the next post), the lectures given by Mark Goodacre (Duke University), Helen Bond (University of Edinburgh), Dale Allison (Princeton Theological Seminary, emeritus), and Joel Marcus (Duke Divinity School, emeritus):
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!
Hello Bart/Dr Ehrman
Why do you believe that after the followers of Jesus and Paul himself came to believe that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead that everyone then thought that the end times had come and that the resurrection had began?
Thanks.
“Resurrection” of the dead was view held by Jewish apocalypticists (not other Jews and certainly not gentiles) who expected a resurrectin to happen on the day of judgment at the end of time; if someone has been raised (not just resuscitated to die again later) it showed that hte end had already begun. So they interpreted their understanding that Jesus was alive again as a “resurrectdion” and a fulfillment of what they were already expecting about the imminent end.
Hello Bart/Dr Ehrman
In your discussion with Kevin Grant you said Luke was a gentile.
Just curious why you think or believe that?
Thanks.
It’s an age-old view, originally based on the fact that the author of Colossians (ch. 4) indicates that “Luke” was a gentile, and, more important, on the author’s profound interested in teh gentile mission etc.
Hello Bart/Dr Ehrman
What do you think of / or are you aware that their are Christians that believe that Jesus did NOT believe the kingdom of God had come in his ministry and that he did not teach that in his ministry was the end of the ages and that judgment day was happening in his lifetime.
Christians say the only way to believe Jesus believed judgement day was in his lifetime is to believe that Jesus believed and ment the kingdom of God means Judgment Day every time he said the kingdom of God.
What are your thoughts Bart?
Thanks.
I too don’t think Jesus thought the Kingdom had come in his ministry. I’m not sure Christians all say one thing or another about Jesus’ view of the kingdom and its coming.
Hello Bart/Dr Ehrman
What do you think of the belief and particularly Christians hold this belief that lots of Jews believed in separation of soul and body in the first century. They believe it was a very common belief.
In the Talmud the rabbis recognized the soul all the time and many rabbis believed the soul and body would get judged and that they had to be reunited first at Judgment Day.
What do you think of this Bart?
Thanks.
The talmud was written centruies later and so doesn’t tell us what Jews thought earlier; and it’s not quite right to say “Jews” think or thought this or that, any more than “Americans” or “the Irish” think this or that….
This event sounds fascinating! I’d be particularly interested to hear Dr. Bond’s perspective on the final hours of Jesus. I’ve always found it puzzling that many scholars interpret the trial, burial, and Joseph of Arimathea’s role through the lens of Roman dominance and indifference to Jewish concerns, emphasizing their brutality and authority. Yet our earliest source on Jesus’s death, 1 Thessalonians 2, doesn’t attribute it to the Romans at all, but explicitly says that the Jews killed him. I’m curious whether that point will be discussed or addressed.
Hello Bart, This is a question regarding your discussion of whether Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2. I understand that there are a number of other examples of different versions of the same story appeairng in the Pentateuch. If I recall correctly, in “Who Wrote the Bible?” Friedman suggested a possible explanation as follows: (I can’t check the book now as I am traveling.) After the return from exile in Babylon it was found that those who had been exiled had a text that differed from that of those who had not been exiled. With few people being literate, a,diplomatic solution was to include both versions in the bible. This would have had the happy consequence that a priest, or whoever, could read out the version that would be familiar to people in a particular audience without them being troubled by the existence of two versions. Does this sound like a likely explanation to you? Best, Jim
It’s possible, but I think a bit too concrete/cut-and-dried/specific to be demonstrated. The reality, I think, is broader than that. There were various versions of how the world got created in different times and places of ancient Israel, serving different purposes, and two of them were put into this account. Probalby the first one was indeed produced by someone with priestly concerns, the other not. But the specifics of how it happened are necessarily lost to us.
Dr. Bonds says ” (witness the serious debates between Craig A. Evans and Bart Ehrman). ”
What are the positions of Drs. Evans and Ehrman?
On which topics?
Dr. Bond, to a novice, is impressive in an easy to read format. I just purchased her study on Pilate. And for this novice it’s, sorry, a real page turner!
Dr. Ehrman,
Romans 10:13, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Does the “Lord” here mean Jesus Christ? or God himself? Or would Paul say it really doesn’t matter because with one you get the other?
I’m not sure what he would say if that particular questoin was put to him. But I don’t think he would phrase it to say that it “doesn’t really matter,” since most everything seemed to matter to him. In the context, though, he is repeatedly referring to Christ, and so that seems almost certianly whom he is referring to.
Dr. Ehrman,
On Paul’s Rom. 11:26 comment that “All Israel will be Saved.” A scholar explained it like this: All Israel means exactly that, all Israel, that means all Jews. As for Jews who had “rejected” Jesus they would come to see and believe that he really is the Messiah when Jesus returns. However, what about those Jews who rejected Jesus and die prior to Jesus’ return? Will they somehow get the chance to be resurrected, see that Jesus is indeed the Messiah after all, and get a chance to accept Jesus at that point? Or is it too late then for them to be saved?
My student Jason Staples has published a large book on just that question, and argues it does not mean “all Jews.” He thinks it means “all those descended from israel” — that is, from the original twelve tribes, and so is referring to gentiles as well (because of mixed marriages). If it does mean “all Jews” then it is in connection with Paul’s claim that “not all Israel is Israel” — that is, only those who have faith in Christ are *really* descendants of Abraham. (That’s the view I’m more inclined to)
Dr. Ehrman,
“And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? I face death every day—yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord. If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained?”
What can be gleaned historically from this? Is the fighting of beasts metaphoric? Even if so, it does seem like Paul and his fellow preachers of the gospel actually are risking their lives in the course of their mission, is this correct?
I wish we knew! But it’s unlikely he was thrown into the arena to face the wild beasts, because when that happened, it was, well, rather difficult to escape to tell the tale later. So I assume it’s metaphorical, and the “beasts” are the inhuman enemies Paul had to face.
I’m beginning to read Mark Goodacre’s The Fourth Canonical Gospel. I will want to derive some conclusions as compared with what I have learned from your texts, including The New Testament with Mendez, and Wonderium lectures and blog podcasts with Megan.
My initial question is does his thesis on John as a Synoptic contradict your interpretation of John as being a post-apocalyptic evangelical Christian theologian ? I think not. For it seems you both emphasize John as saying the kingdom of God via belief in Christ is now, not prophesied to an imminent future. Is that right? Right now, I’m not concerned with your differences on the Q source, or reliance on OT, and oral traditions, just the eschatology issue.
It contradicts my view that there’s no solid evidence that John knew the Synoptics, but not about him being non-apocayptic.