(7 votes, average: 4.86 out of 5)
Loading...The previous post provided a summary of the first four lectures given by internationally known historical Jesus scholars at our New Insights Into the New Testament conference at the end of September (the summary was produced by Marko Marina, in advance of the lectures).
The second day of the conference also had four lectures, by Paula Fredriksen (Boston University emerita and Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Me (UNC Chapel Hill), James Tabor (UNC-Charlotte, emeritus), and A.J. Levine (Hartford International University and Vanderbilt University, emerita).
Well, sort of. James Tabor was in Athens and his Internet went a bit haywire, so he had to record his talk later — it is included in the recording of the conference. In its place, I gave a rather impromptu additional talk (on whether Jesus was probably literate).
Here are Marko’s summaries of the lectures, made in advance of the conference itself:
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!
The help page says to ask Dr Ehrman questions ask them on any post. Is this correct if they are not on the subject of the post? And where would I read the response?
They show up in the same place whatever post you ask them on. so ask away. Any questions are welcome, and can be made connected with any post.
Dr. Ehrman,
Let’s suppose that Jesus was not crucified or if he was no one thought that he was resurrected. Do you think that Jesus’ message would have had any impact on the Jewish religion? I’m thinking that due to his low economic status probably not. But if it did what impact do you think that his message would have had?
No. I don’t think so. He would have been one of many hundreds who had good things to say with his own twist, but since he was a lower-class and unknown preacher in a remote part of Israel, I doubt if he would have had much lasting influence.
Hi Dr Ehrman.
Long time subscriber, never commented.
I was listening to a recent YouTube video of yours and for the first time I was moved to ask a question, which seemed obvious to me, but which I have not heard addressed in a straight-forward manner somewhere else I could easily find.
I studied the history of Christian Doctrine a long time ago, but I have forgot that all now (sorry Prof. Pelikan); even so I couldn’t come up with even a sketch of an answer to the below:
For those who think that canonical right belief on things such as Christ’s nature came as late as the 4th or even the 5th+ century, how do they explain the v sophisticated theology already present in John?
If John was simply picking up ideas that were already highly polemical in the 1st century, Isnt that a devastating critique of the idea that “orthodoxy” evolved much later? Isnt John’s theology quite orthodox?
As a non-practicing Christian for many decades now, I don’t have a personal investment in this issue but in some ways I found this question even more perplexing therefore.
Thanks and keep up the great work!
Good question, and yes, scholars deal with it when dealing specifically with Johannine theology, e.g., the Prologue (1:1-18). THere have been large debates about John’s christology in large part because it appears inconsistent. In one place Jesus will say “I and the Father are one” and in another “If you have seen me you have seen the Father,” but in another he says “The Father is greater than me.” Lots of these apparent inconsistencies can be found, even next to each other, as in ch. 1 where he is identified both as the Word through whom the universe is made but then later (different pericope) in very human terms, “messiah, rabbi, king” etc. I’d say that John’s overall Christology is the highest of the NT, but it is nowhere near what it became by the fourth century, with “homoousias,” etc. I hope this helps.