Loading...I wish we knew how many people “started” Christianity. Before I reflect on this issue, let me say some things about definitions and terms, specifically the terms “Christianity” and “Christian.”
A lot of scholars object to using the term “Christianity” for the first followers of Jesus who came to believe that he got raised from the dead. Once they believed this, these scholars say, these people didn’t actually become “Christian.” They were still fully Jews, Jews who believed that Jesus was the messiah. “Christianity,” in this opinion, is a later development when these believers in Jesus developed their own religion that was distinct from Judaism. Christianity doesn’t exist, in this view, until you have some kind of set of distinctive Christian beliefs and practices (such as baptism, eucharist, weekly meetings, and so on). And so often scholars will talk about the “Jesus Movement” during the early years and decades after Jesus’ death.
I see the force of this view, but I have to admit that for my part, I’ve never had qualms about calling the first believers in Jesus’ death and resurrection “Christians.” I completely, absolutely agree that these people did not have a separate and distinct religion (from other Jews) with established doctrines and rituals. But in my opinion – and it’s nothing more than an opinion since there is no “evidence” either to refute or confirm it – a “Christian” is someone who believes that Jesus is the messiah of God whose death and resurrection brought about salvation.
Yes, of course, these earliest believers were completely Jews and nothing else. And of course, they did not have developed doctrines, or distinct Scriptures, or unique rituals and so on – the things that make the trappings of an established “religion.”
But they were Jews who believed that Jesus was the Savior, and that made them different from all other Jews. Just as the “Pharisees” were different from other Jews; and the “Sadducees”; and the “Essenes”; and so on. The followers of Jesus became a distinctive kind of Jew. And so if we can label other kinds of Jews with names, we can label these followers of Jesus after his death as well. Eventually – much later – they would form a religion distinct from Judaism.
So I do see the problems with calling them by the name of a later distinct religion; but I also see that there is real continuity between these earlier followers and what later developed. One problem with refusing to call them Christians is what scholars who like sophisticated terms (i.e., most scholars) call “essentializing.” Essentializing is a four-letter word for many scholars. It means that one insists that a concept, or an entity, or a type of person can be reduced to its “essence” and that if something doesn’t have that essence, then it is not properly classified as a concept, entity, type of person, etc.
In the present case, the problem is that someone who refuses to call these earliest followers of Jesus “Christian” have in mind a fairly strict definition of “Christian” that has a certain “essence” to it: being a Christian means believing x, y, and z; and practicing x, y, and z; and behaving in the manner of x, y, and z, and if someone doesn’t believe, practice, and behave in these ways, s/he cannot, then, be a Christian. She/He is lacking the “true essence” of a Christian. And what is the true essence? The one the scholar has made up.
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE MISSING (literally!). So Join! All membership fees go directly to charity!
So it may seem that I too am “essentializing” when I say that the earliest Christians had to believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus brought salvation. To that I would reply that yes, there *do* have to be limits to how we use terms. If I call my mother a Buddhist because she sits around and thinks a lot, most people would say that’s not good enough. But when coming up with the meaning of “Buddhist,” or “Jew,” or “Christian,” in order to avoid essentializing too much, it is best, in my opinion, to have a very, very broad and encompassing definition, rather than a very narrow, circumscribed one that requires you to check all the boxes in order to see if someone or something fits.
And so I have no qualms calling these followers of Jesus Christian.
But how many were there? I wish we knew. Obviously there was *someone* who first came to believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead. In other words, someone had to be first. I very much doubt if 20 people all came to think that at the same moment. I think someone started it. Was it the disciple Peter? Mary Magdelene? Someone else?
Let me stress that simply thinking that Jesus was raised from the dead would not make a person Christian even by my (very) broad definition. Even by my definition, a person would have to think that Jesus’ return to life was a miracle of God *and* that it had something to do with God’s act of salvation. It could not, for example, just be a near-death experience, or a miracle that was great for Jesus himself but not relevant for anyone else. It would have to be a miracle that God had performed in order to bring salvation to others. Once someone believed that, by my definition, s/he had become a distinct kind of person (even if still a Jew), that is, a Christian.
My hunch is that the first person or persons who thought that Jesus was no longer dead did not, on the spot, immediately conclude that Jesus’ death and resurrection brought salvation. How long did it take for someone to draw that conclusion? I’m afraid we have no idea. We simply don’t have the kinds of historical sources that we would need in order to say.
And so we now have several questions to ponder, which I plan to consider in the next post or so: Why did the first “Christians” come to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead? Who was the first to believe this? How long did it take to convince others? How was their belief spread? When did that belief come to be transformed into the Christian idea that Jesus’ death and resurrection had brought salvation?
These are key questions that, I would guess, most Christians have never puzzled much over, even though they are absolutely key to understanding how Christianity “started.” I will be puzzling over them here in your presence in the next few days.
At the outset, was it that Jesus’ death and resurrection that was understood to have brought salvation, or was it his life and teachings? If the latter, can you provide a definitive reference for that distinction?
It’s hard to know. But Paul in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 suggests it was the latter
The latter?
Woops. I meant the former. (The first shall be last!)
Do you mean the former? That’s what 1Cor.15:3-5 appears to me to argue.
Former!! Sorry.
His life and teachings were Jewish and Jews did not believe the messiah had anything to do with salvation as Paul and Christians have come to understand it. First of all, they didn’t believe the story of Adam and Eve in Eden was a story of the Fall of Humankind or the serpent was Satan (as Jews do not even today). Although some Jews believed Jesus was the messiah and was still the messiah after his death, that did not, in itself, mean they believed his suffering and death were sacrificial and that belief in them could bring redemption. I suspect that it wasn’t until they (or someone) sought answers in scripture for how it is the messiah could have been crucified and why he was resurrected. It was in that process, I think, that they (he?) came up with the idea of salvation through the risen Christ.
This sounds like another *very* interesting topic!
Semi-related: When I was young, I thought what we were supposed to believe was that Jesus was (of course) God, the second person of the Trinity. He’d allowed himself to be born as a human because people weren’t leading good lives, the lives God wanted them to live. So he’d *told* us, through his teachings, what God wanted. Then he’d died and risen from the dead – a once-in-all-of-history miracle – to *prove* he *was* God, and that was why everyone should accept his teachings! (He’d let himself be crucified because that was the most public of all ways to die; he’d *indisputably* been dead.)
If some of the earliest “believers in Jesus” held *that* belief, would you count them as “Christians” by your definition?
Yup.
I have puzzled over Christianity for most of my life. I began as a mainstream Christian. I was even ordained a deacon, priest and bishop in an independent Catholic Church with, what the Vatican would call, valid, but illicit, orders. But in my older years, I became convinced to believe, essentially, your scholarly view. I founded an institution this year for like-minded people who consider themselves Christian because they accept Jesus as their Lord, but in a factually-based way that looks to scholarly work for facts. We believe that factual truth must be the foundation of faith (trustworthiness). We are non-trinitarian; believe that Jesus was a fully human man and not God; believe in cognitive continuation after death based on coherent and sentient energy configurations that is the source of the self (soul), and that the appearances of Jesus after the crucifixion were visions and not flesh and blood appearances; believe that the Apostles and first followers of Jesus viewed him as the Messiah who was their salvation, but not God, and their salvation lay in Jesus’ intent to reform Judaism and bring about an egalitarian society; we do not believe in the supernatural, but see God as working within the natural context of his own creation; and believe that the church brought about the Christianity today through propaganda and force, resulting in the bishops selfish desire for power and wealth. That propaganda was so effective over time that the church clergy came to believe it as truth; and so we have the mainline church of today, which does not believe that we are Christian, though we may be more like Jesus than they know.
Hi Bart, were the writers of the Gospels Jewish or Christian? I say Christian.
Also, nothing happened that Jews believed would happen when the Messiah came. How did the early Jewish
Christians deal with that?
Wouldn’t the Jewish Messiah bring about an egalitarian society without Jesus? That is for David Beaman.
Definitely Christian!
Would it be more accurate to say that they were a Jewish sect? The NT says that the Apostles worshiped in the temple daily after Jesus’ crucifixion. Wasn’t that true? Would the temple priests have allowed that, if it’s true, if they were not considered Jewish? Anyway, isn’t true that the word “Christian” wasn’t even in use until later on?
Yes, early on I would say they were a Jewish sect. I doubt if they were in the temple right away though — my guess is that they were up in Galilee.
As I understand it, but Dr. Ehrman may correct me if I’m incorrect, if Jesus was the Messiah, the Jewish people got it wrong as to what the Messiah would be like and do. Since I am a person to whom Jesus is very important from a spiritual perspective, which for me has to have factual truth as its base, Dr. Ehrman is very kind and does not comment on someone’s spirituality. He is a scholar who deals in fact. And there aren’t many who are trying to base spirituality on historical and archaeological fact. Most, from my experience, who fully accept scholarly findings aren’t all that interested in being anything that could be considered religious. I read a lot and have a doctoral level education, but not in history or archaeology, so I look for scholars to help me find truth as I quest for a spirituality based on truth. Forgive me if I have not been very very eloquent in expressing myself here.
I find it very difficult to understand some of your beliefs. For example, you and your church claim to not believe in the supernatural but belief in God is belief in the supernatural. You might believe he works “within the natural context of his own creation,” but if he created it, then he existed before it and that makes him other than natural. If he works in it, he remains nevertheless, God, a supernatural being.
Regarding your belief about Jesus’ “intent to reform Judaism,” there were at least three different forms of Judaism in the 1st century and one of them rejected the status quo at the Temple even more strongly than Jesus did. Except, rather than reform it, they moved out to Qumran by the Dead Sea.
“Reform Judaism” or make reforms within Judaism? People have attacked Catholic Church for allowing the licentious behavior of some of its priests. That was a form of corruption within the Church and the demands for change were for making reforms within the church, not reforming Catholicism. Same goes for Jesus’ criticisms of practices in Jerusalem. He was not about changing the essence of Judaism itself. In addition, most Jews were rural: only a small minority of Jews was Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes. Their total might have barely exceeded 10,000 while the population of Jews in the Mediterranean area exceeded 2 million. So we need to keep a more Howard Zinn sort of perspective on first century Judaism: religious history and scriptures too come mostly from the victors.
It puzzles me, if you believe Jesus was fully human, why you would view him as your Lord? (“Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God, the LORD is one!”) If you’re right that “Jesus’ intent [was] to reform Judaism and bring about an egalitarian society,” then he was a Jewish prophet, not Lord. And Jews would not have considered that salvation. Jews viewed their salvation to have been their release from bondage and the gift of the Torah. When ideas of a messiah arose in times leading up to Jesus, the salvation they connected with the messiah had nothing to do with salvation as Christians understand it. Nor did Jesus’ teachings. So, I’m really curious: why do you call yourselves Christians and not Jews? Then again, if you take someone as Lord, that would probably too idolatrous for most Jews. You say, “the mainline church of today, which does not believe that we are Christian, though we may be more like Jesus than they know.” I know Bart believes that anyone who calls himself Christian should be considered one. But it is so clear to me: being like the Jew Jesus with his variations of some Jewish teachings is not enough to make one a Christian.
Thank you for your reply. I’ll try to explain.
First of all, in reality, we are not a church. I use that word because it has legal usage in applying for a non-profit designation from the Federal government that does not take our difference into account. We are a group of like-minded people who gather around the historical Jesus. That is closer to the meaning of the Greek Ekklesia that is translated as church in the NT. We disagree with that translation, but that is another issue.
We do not consider the concept of God as supernatural anymore than we consider subatomic particles to be supernatural. In our opinion, God is the first-cause, one of the philosophical proofs of the existence of God. And, yes, I am aware of the counter arguments to that proof.
Yes, I understand that there were various sects other than the Jesus kind. Nevertheless, it is the Jesus kind that attracts us.
You say, “Reform Judaism or make reforms within Judaism?” I am not talking about a something like the Protestant Reformation, which even Martin Luther didn’t have in mind when posted his suggestions on that church door. I am talking about reform within Judaism.
As for our usage of the word, “Lord,” we use it in the meaning of someone or something having power, authority, or influence; a master or ruler. We do not use it as another word for God. We think the Jews got it wrong in their thinking about the Messiah. In our minds, If Jesus was the Messiah, the salvation he brought about came from advocating egalitarianism and freedom from too strict an observance of the law.
As for being Christian, we are Christian because we follow the teaching of Jesus as best as we can determine from scholarship what they were. We do not become Jews mainly because the Judaism of today is very different than the Judaism of Jesus’ day and we would not be welcomed in the synagogues thinking and believing as we do. We could not talk freely about Jesus and express ourselves.
You say that our beliefs are not enough to make us Christians. Of course, we would disagree with you. I do not know what your definition of a Christian would be, but for us, it is anyone who has chosen to live their lives according to the teaching of Jesus as best as can be determined by scholars like Dr. Ehrman.
Had egalitarianism and freedom from too strict an observance of the law been achieved by the Jews whom Jesus taught and by their progeny in the first century, what would have been created would have been a Jewish society brought about by Jews that took Jesus’ message of egalitarianism and less legalism to heart. Following Jesus in such a way would not have made them Christians. It is because of what became Christianity and its focus on Jesus as at least semi-divine and bringer of salvation to sinners that that Jesus is not talked about in synagogues today. But if those first century Jews had reformed Judaism according to Jesus’ teachings, they would have had their synagogues where, no doubt, if you had been a first century non-Jew, you would have been welcomed at least as a righteous gentile.
It is obvious that your definition of “Christian” and mine are different. Let’s just leave it go at that and move on.
Slightly off-topic: I was thinking again about widespread “persecution” of Christians not having begun till – was it the beginning of the third century? I began wondering: how early was there evidence of people believing Christian meetings involved incest and eating of babies?
The first reference is in Justin Martyr, around 150 CE; the most graphic references are in Minucius Felix toward the end of the century.
I have a real problem believing that Jesus was raised from the dead. That’s not possible after complete death. I think those first ones you speak of simply had an experience in which they “thought” Jesus was raised from the dead. It may even have been a dream they ascribed to reality.
I definitely don’t accept “salvation theology”. I believe that was a later belief system.
I think the reported appearances of Jesus after death were in the category of visions. As for salvation, I ask, salvation from what? To me it is salvation from a societal class system based on wealth and power and putting forth and advocating for an egalitarian society.
I wish I knew how the concepts of shame and redemption became such central tenets of the new “Christianity.” GIven that these early Christians were Jews, where did they make the jump from a more life-affirming religion (Le Chaim! Is, after all, the Jewish toast) into a religious perspective that is essentially life-denying?
You should read George Bernard Shaw’s essay, The Monstrous Imposition on Jesus. Fantastic. And deals with just this question.
As I understand it, the concept of ‘Original Sin’ – thus requiring redemption – is central to all varieties of Christianity, but is not common to all varieties of Judaism.
Is this correct, and is it possible to identify when the ‘Original Sin’ idea surfaced or became identified with Christianity?
No, I’d say there are lots of Christians who do not hold to original sin. It is a later concept, and not held by all.
Thanks. That’s the theology I was taught as a child blown out of the window then!
(Adam committed the original sin, God sat on it for 2,000 years then decided to send Jesus as atonement).
Nope, it didn’t make sense to me then, either!
The sects of Christianity that do not believe in original sin–do they still look to Christ for salvation and, if so, from what? Can you name a few of them?
You can have committed sins without there being something called “original sin.” That doctrine was the idea that your sin nature was passed on to you physically from your parents because of their act of conception.
Do you have a link to that essay? I find references to it, but not the full essay itself.
It may be available online, I don’t know. It can be found in the collection of Paul’s writings and essays about them edited by Wayne Meeks and John Fitzgerald, The Writings of St. Paul.
I googled this article but I couldn’t find the article itself, only references to it. Do you know of another way to access it? Thanks!
It’s in Wayne Meeks and John Fitzgerald, eds., The Writings of St. Paul.
“Christianity” is an English word that distinguishes those who follow the teachings and actions of Jesus (another English word). It is derived from the Greek word “cristos” (or is it Latin?). I’m not even sure what term is used in other contemporary languages for “Christian.” I don’t recall seeing it used in the New Testament.
I’m of the opinion that the transition came with the teachings of Paul, which, to me are quite different from the core teachings of Jesus (the imminent coming of God’s Kingdom and the “kingdom” ethics he taught) compared to what Paul presents as a view of a “Risen Christ” based on his visions leading to an other worldly cosmic christ. Paul uses Christ, Jesus Christ and Christ Jesus (as translated) quite heavily. Rsrely uses Jesus along and never mentions Jesus’ ethical teachings. But that just my opinion.
Question: Do you know where the term Christian is used first in writings outside the New Testament and if there are any references to Christian or Christians in the New Testament documents?” I can’t recall seeing that term used to refer to his followers.
Yes, “Christian” is used twice in the NT: Acts 11:26 (indicating that the followers of Jesus were first called this in Antioch) and in 1 Peter.
I disagree that “Christians” can be defined as “those who follow the teachings and actions of Jesus.” Were some of his followers during his lifetime trying to follow his teachings and actions? They weren’t Christians. Before he suffered, was crucified, and allegedly resurrected, could there have been Christians? What if Jesus had grown to a ripe old age so that more and more Jews were trying to follow his teachings and actions? They would have been thought of (perhaps even today) as Jews who considered Jesus a prophet. I still find it odd today when some people say they’re Christians merely because they try to live moral lives influenced by Jesus’ moral teachings. But I guess fans of Jesus are free to call themselves Christians if they want to. I doubt that most religious Christians would agree with them.
Dr. Ehrman, I have no issue with calling the first Christians “Christians”, though I usually refer to them as Jewish Christians for the sake of clarity — that is, to disguished the Jewish church of Jerusalem from the gentile churches established by missionaries such as Paul. However, my hunch is that the very first followers of Jesus — quite possibly Jesus himself, as well as John the Baptist and his followers — called themselves Na’azrim — נאזרים — i.e. “The Girded” (cf. Acts 24:5) — girded meaning in this sense that they were spiritually and physically prepared for the coming Kingdom of God — that is, girded both in the sense of a priest who has his holy attire fully belted around his waist and a holy warrior who has his weapon belted to his hip, along with the symbolism of gathering together all the righteous prepared for salvation (cf. Jer. 13). It was later, likely as a mocking pun, that non-Christian Jews would refer to the Na’azrim as Na’atzrim — נעצרים — i.e. “The Reined-in”, possibly as a reference to how their “savior” was stopped by being killed, or maybe in reference to how the early Christians were always getting arrested for their rousing of Messianic fervor. (It’s like if you were to form an apocalyptic cult called the Ever-readies, and I mocked you by calling you the Ever-deadies.) Till today the Jewish (i.e. Hebrew) word for “Christian” is Notzrim, which comes from that original mocking pun Na’atzrim.
As for what distinguished a 1st century Christian from a 1st century Jew, I agree with your definition with the exception of one phrase: “whose death and resurrection brought about salvation”. The saving aspect of the death and resurrection sounds extremely Pauline to me. I simply can’t imagine that the early disciples and first followers of Jesus saw his death and resurrection has somehow necessary for salvation. I think they believed, just as any self-respecting 1st century Jew would have, that salvation came from צדק — that is, righteousness. And righteousness, in the Jewish sense, came via several avenues, namely: keeping the Law, being charitable and keeping pure, both sexually (i.e. in the flesh — בשר) and spiritually (נפש). It was only upon their attempts to proselytize gentiles that the first Christians probably began to describe Jesus’ death as a sacrifice that a believer needed to have faith in, that is, in lieu of the more Jewish acts of “righteousness”, such as circumcision, kashrut laws, etc. That is to say, gentile converts merely had to accept the sacrifice of Jesus to attain righteousness and, thus, avoid condemnation.
What the very first Christians (that is, the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem ca. 30CE) probably believed about Jesus death and resurrection was two things. First, they saw his death as God punishing the disloyal Jews for not accepting their Messiah, by only giving them a teasing glimpse of him before snatching him away, and not just that but God would make the Messiah suffer before death, just to make the Jews feel ashamed and guilty for their lack of faith (cf. Isaiah 53), as if to toy with the Jews (which would make God a bit of prick). Second, they saw Jesus’ resurrection as God giving the faithful a taste and sign of the coming resurrection of the dead. For the first Christians, Jesus being resurrected and coming to them via the Holy Spirit was a sign of the “first fruits” of the resurrection (cf. 1 Cor. 15:23). His resurrection was to give them hope that the resurrection and, therefore, the Kingdom were coming soon.
Of course, the Kingdom — and the resurrection — never came, so that’s why the Pauline doctrine of salvation through faith in Christ alone developed. In the Pauline doctrine Jesus became something of advocate for the faithful, so that when the end times culling of the wicked from the righteous occured, Jesus would set apart his own people (i.e. “those who belong to him” 1 Cor. 15:23) for special favor and salvation from the conflagration of the wicked and unrighteous. In other words, salvation no longer comes from all that Jewish stuff, but instead merely from an appeal to Jesus Christ alone.
It’s a bit of a wonder to me–if you do not believe (as I do not believe) that the first Jewish followers of Jesus saw his suffering, death, and resurrection as a means to salvation–why you nevertheless call them “Christians.” No one became a Christian just in virtue of thinking Jesus was the messiah–not even if you continued to believe after his death. Then you’d just be a crazy Jew.
“Christ” just means Messiah in Greek, that is, The Anointed One. So if some Jews thought that the Messiah had already come (and died and resurrected), then I supposed it’s fair to distinguish those Jews from the Jews who didn’t think the Messiah had already come. And calling those Jews Christians as a way to distinguish them seems reasonable.
“Christ” in Greek might mean “messiah” but “Christ” in Christianity means a lot more than just “anointed one.” It has its connotations of messiah as savior and having to do with redemption of sins. We would not call the followers of Judas the Galilean (who was crucified in the year 6 or so) “Christians” because they were Jews who thought the messiah had come. Nor the Jewish followers of any other would-be messiah. Certainly Jesus’ Jewish followers before his death had no reason to think he would suffer and die or have a redemptive death that brought salvation. So why would we call them Christians? In all probability, all they expected from him is that he would somehow get rid of the Jews’ enemies, re-establish the nation Israel, and help usher in the kingdom of God. They would have been just Jews believing in a messiah, not Christians. Another group, in my view, would be some of those followers who continued to believe even after his death, believing he had been resurrected and would return to finish the same job. Such Jews would have acquired a certain otherness within their Jewish communities and been viewed probably as nuts to still believe but there still would have been no reason to call them Christians. Finally, as I see it, there’s a third group–those who continued to believe, believed that he’d risen, AND believed that his suffering, death, and resurrection had redemptive power. Now that would have been new territory, pressing the boundaries of all the variations of first century Judaisms and reason enough for more and more Jews to reject them as beyond the pale of Judaism and deserving of a new name.
I understand how the earliest Christians can be considered yet another Jewish sect, but when they started proselytizing to and converting Gentiles, I think they may have ceased being Jewish. I think the evangelizing aspect of this new religion is a big part of its “essence”.
I would like to suggest that readers of this website click on the youtube icon above and watch the two (2008 and 2009) Licona-Ehrman debates. They are excellent, especially the 2009 one in which Dr. Licona is not hoarse.
The central issue is how do we understand reports of ancient people (both individually and in groups) seeing Jesus after His death? Dr. Licona contends that the best explanation is that Jesus was Resurrected. Dr. Ehrman, in contrast, contends that the best explanation is that these people had visions or hallucinations of Jesus. i wonder if a still more likely explanation might be that these reports were legendary in origin created and expanded by decades of oral transmission before they were written in the Gospels. Why does it seem “probable” that these Gospel reports are not legendary, especially the one in the 15th chapter pf First Corinthians about Jesus appearing to 500 people? Shouldn’t the Gospel authors have mentioned such an astounding event if it were historical or even visionary? Hence. it was probably legendary.
I also wonder if either Dr. Licona or Dr. Ehmran changed his view about anything as a result of the debates. If so, what?
With regard to Dr. Licona, I was surprised that he did not change his view through two debates that the disciples felt strongly enough about the Resurrection that they died for their beliefs despite Dr. Ehrman’s repeated rebuttal that we know nothing about the deaths of these disciples.
With regard to Dr. Ehrman, it is still not clear to me how “theological” truth can be split off from “historical” truth as if the two are “non-overlapping magisteria.” For me, something is either probably true or it is probably not true or we just do not know whether it is true or not true. One cannot separate surgery from anatomy, one is based on the other, the same with theology and history.
Thanks as always. .
.
” Dr. Ehrman, in contrast, contends that the best explanation is that these people had visions or hallucinations of Jesus.”
I have read (and accept) the evidence on mass hallucinations, and as a retired police officer have quite some experience of flawed memories of witnesses.
Some years ago, on holiday in France, I visited Lourdes with a French middle-aged couple. They were nominal but irregular Catholics. It was a sobering experience, especially the mass parade of the disabled and afflicted hoping for miracles.
My friends were, and remain, absolutely convinced that miracle healings occurred and that these were due to the visions that Bernadette(?) saw in the grotto. Brief conversation revealed that this was not a matter for discussion. As far as they were concerned, these things happened and that was that.
It was a bit of an eye-opener for me. In all other aspects of their life these people were fairly cynical. In this religious aspect they were totally believing and unquestioning. I have no difficulty in seeing how reports of Jesus appearing after his death could have been accepted, expanded, and gained currency.
This is very, very interesting. Thanks for sharing it.
Hope springs eternal.
About those debates: If I remember correctly, I was surprised that Bart never mentioned something he had discussed in the blog – vivid *dreams* that people take to be veridical. I assumed he hadn’t read about that phenomenon until after the debates.
I was especially interested in it because I myself had a vivid dream of my mother – months after her death – in which she assured me that she was, in some sense, “still alive.” In the dream, she let me hold a baby. And my understanding was that she was about to reincarnate in that baby.
Whether or not dreams of this nature – implying some kind of “survival” – are *really* veridical, it seems they’re experienced frequently. And they may convince people who’d be merely *frightened* by waking “visions.”
I have known several people who claimed that they have been visited by a deceased person when what really happened is that they had a dream. So ,the possibility that the disciples had dreams that they thought were real visits seems possible to me.
Thanks for your clarification. I think I was reacting to people telling me stuff that I know is not true and then using as evidence that it is a matter of “faith” or “theology” as if theology is just another form of evidence.
“what really happened is that they had a dream”? How do you know that is what “really” happened? Is that what the people themselves concluded after some reflection? Is that a conclusion you’ve drawn because you don’t accept as evidence anything but empirical evidence? I’m curious.
I had 3 vivid dreams of my parents after they died. They weren’t ordinary dreams…hard to explain unless you’ve experienced it. The first one was of my mother. She spoke to me like it was an ordinary day. When she turned to leave, I reached out and took hold of her arm. This was the first time I ever reached out to touch someone in a dream, and her arm felt as real as if I were awake and she was alive. I said to her, “You know you’re dead don’t you?” She said, “Yes. I was sick for a very long time.” This was true. She had copd for 8 years. Then I said, “Are you okay?” She shrugged and answered yes, but it was like she wasn’t happy or sad…kind of melancholy. I then asked her if she’d seen dad. He died exactly 10 weeks before her. And she said, “No, I haven’t seen him.” I woke up and was worried that the other side was not all roses and sunshine.
I had another vivid dream of my dad where I touched his arm; it also seemed very real. But then the last vivid dream I had was at least 2 years after their passing. I prayed to know their fates because I was worried about my mother’s almost depressive-like mental state in other dreams I had of her.
I dreamed that both my parents were standing at the foot of a mountain together. This wind of some kind was blowing, and it was extremely bright as if the sun was enveloping it and *standing* in front of them simultaneously. I asked my mother if she was all right. This time she said, “Oh, it’s wonderful here! You wouldn’t believe it!” She walked up to me and whispered a secret in my ear. A secret about the universe. Then, I woke up. I took it as a sign that she and my dad found each other and had finally *made it*. This was after other strange dreams I had of their journey getting there. It was like they went through a learning experience, and they did reach paradise, but I noticed they were at the foot of the mountain and not at the top. As if they were on yet another journey, except this time, I’m not a part of it. No more *vivid* dreams. I’m excluded from those.
Wonderful dreams. Lao Tzu wrote that we should keep to the valley so maybe they are where they should be, but it’s all symbolic. Also, the Berkeley psychiatrist, Leo Zeff, in the 60’s, might have retorted to your last line, “Those ARE you!”
Oh yes, these experiences of yours are amazing. Here’s a link to an essay of mine, in which I say a little more about experiences of mine than I have on the blog:
https://www.fictionpress.com/s/3117526/1/Waving-to-Mom
Another interesting phenomenon is “visions” people have when they’re close to death. *Not* the “near death experiences” when they’re unconscious, but experiences when they’re fully conscious, awake and talking.
I visited a cousin of mine in a nursing home at a time like that. (She was a first cousin, but 24 years my senior.) She was in bed, seeming to carry on a conversation with someone who wasn’t there. Judging from her part of the conversation, the person was male, an old friend, but no more than that. Then she gestured toward the head of the bed – as if people were standing there – and told her friend, “This is my Aunt Helen and her husband Joe.” My parents! It gave me goosebumps. And one of the professionals there said patients have experiences like that so frequently that it’s hard to believe *some* aspect of it isn’t “real.”
I tend to believe both my parents had reincarnated before then. But even so, I think my cousin was able to see them – and I will too, hopefully many years from now – because a *part* of everyone’s psyche exists in another realm, “outside of time,” until all yearned-for reunions have taken place.
When people start talking about dreams and visions, then, inherently they’re talking about something that is NOT REAL.
I kind of figured most people know this. I mean, it’s a totally common thing for, say, a grieving person to think they “feel the presence” of a lost loved one. Or, to think that they heard the deceased persons voice. Dreams and visions are pretty much in the same category.
Since when did anybody get convinced that somebody else’s dream or vision of a deceased person was somehow valid?
I’m guessing that people back in the first century knew full well that grieving people sometimes see, hear, or “experience” certain things that the grieving person attributes to the deceased person.
And – that brings up the point: If such things are attributed to DECEASED persons, then, it’s clear that person is DEAD.
Does anybody get the sense that the NT books (speaking in broad terms) are talking about a DEAD Jesus? If that’s the case, then, heck, we might as well start making up stories about how we’ve seen Abraham and Moses alive. And JFK. Whatever.
I dunno… I’m not sure if I can buy into these “dreams and visions” theories. Everybody knows a ghost story when they hear it…
“inherently they’re talking about something that is NOT REAL”?
What is inherent here, I think, is in you: the believe that nothing is real unless it can be measured or perceived by the senses. Are dreams not real because they are not real in the same sense that our waking life is real? They exist, so what is their nature? Is something you can neither prove or disprove automatically not real?
Dreams and visions are ‘real’ in the sense that people have them. Lacking the testability mindset of science, the ancients believed that they were a source of information, and especially a source of communications from the gods. The person in a tribe who was believed by the tribe to be good at receiving these communications was called a shaman. Not only is the dream itself untestable, so also is the content of the dream, or that he even had a dream. All you have is the word of the shaman.
Christianity is a belief system about a person (Jesus), namely that his death provided a universal sacrifice. Paul didn’t care about anything Jesus said or did during his lifetime, only his sacrificial death. The synoptic diarists go to great length to show why the ideas of Christianity were unknown during the lifetime of Jesus.
RonaldTaska — ‘With regard to Dr. Ehrman, it is still not clear to me how “theological” truth can be split off from “historical” truth as if the two are “non-overlapping magisteria.” For me, something is either probably true or it is probably not true or we just do not know whether it is true or not true. One cannot separate surgery from anatomy, one is based on the other, the same with theology and history.’
I don’t see that he answered this, but he explained it clearly at the beginning of some of his courses. The two do need to be separated. The historian can try to tell you whether or not Jesus was executed by Pilate. The theologian would talk about whether that death had any spiritual significance, such as bringing about salvation. The historian can tell you, from ancient texts, what people at that time believed. He is not qualified by his discipline to tell you whether or not those beliefs were true.
The work of the historian is important. The theologian may base his claims on the writings of Paul. The historian can help discover which writings actually (or likely) were by Paul. The theologian may base his beliefs on the resurrection of Jesus. The historian addresses the question of whether there is any credible historical record of that event ever happening.
I look forward to following this thread! Other than Mary Magdalen and Peter, are there any other likely suspects as the first to conclude that Jesus had been raised?
Not *as* likely.
Bart:
In one of your memorable addresses you refer to the original ending of Mark’s gospel – to the effect that Mary said nothing to anyone, for she was afraid.
Do we have any evidence anywhere of what she did or said subsequently to tell of what she’d seen (or hadn’t seen?).
Thanks
I was talking purely about what Mark’s Gospel was saying — not what really happened. In Mark’s Gospel she doesn’t ever say anything to anyone.
I tend to think of these earliest Christians-but-only-sort of as proto-Christians, perhaps inspired by the term “proto-orthodox” which some obscure writer or other favours…
But if you really want to see bickering and haggling over these things, go find some taxonomists; preferably, get one staunch cladist and one defender of traditional taxonomies, one lumper, and one splitter. The wonderful thing about evolution being a series of infinitesmal and gradual steps is that there is an infinitude of transitional forms—really, every form is transitional—to haggle over, yet only a discrete set of taxa to fit them into. (Is this a Homo fossil, or an Australipithecus?)
I think it’s no coincidence that a biologist, Richard Dawkins, wrote an essay called The Tyranny of the Discontinuous mind [https://richarddawkins.net/2013/01/the-tyranny-of-the-discontinuous-mind-christmas-2011/].
Hi Bart, you may well have touched on this anyway but could you share your thoughts on the fact that Paul doesn’t mention Mary Magdalene when he lists the resurrection appearances in Corinthians? Does this suggest that stories about appearances to the Magdalene weren’t in circulation till later and thus add doubt as to their historicity? Many thanks!
Yup, I hope to say something about that in a future post. (It wouldn’t show that hte traditions were necessarily *later*, just that they weren’t probalby known to Paul)
The idea of a sacrifice for us seems fairly common; particularly with such a violent gruesome death. Survivors guilt?
One could also see how the suffering servant theme could easily make sense to those trying to make sense of Jesus death. Add in the idea that people believed they saw him alive afterwords makes a potent brew.
BTW any plans to attend the 2016 “Memory and the Reception of Jesus in Early Christianity” conference in London?
I hadn’t heard of the conference!
Fascinating and cogent as always. But is this quite right?
Ehrman:
Obviously there was *someone* who first came to believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead. In other words, someone had to be first. I very much doubt if 20 people all came to think that at the same moment. I think someone started it. Was it the disciple Peter? Mary Magdalene? Someone else?
Suppose two (or three or four) grief struck follower of Jesus are talking it over during the days after his death. Why couldn’t they find that they have shared similar experiences? Why couldn’t the discussion (over coffee, let’s say) lead the two (or maybe three or four) of them to together develop the thought that a proper understanding of their experience leads to the conclusion “he is risen”? Why couldn’t the two of them go into the coffee shop not “believing in the resurrection” and walk out together both of them believing in it?
I agree that discovery is usually a competitive one-guy-first sort of thing. (As David Wootton elaborates on in his Invention of Science). But in this case, whether it’s of course disputable whether there was in fact anything out there to be discovered. The fact is, so to speak, all in the heads of those who purport to have discovered it. And maybe in this instance, two heads are better than one–talking it over leads to the emergence of a belief about what really happened, a belief that emerges more or less simultaneously in the minds and hearts of two or possibly even more individuals sharing their grief.
Yup, it’s possible that several thought this simultaneously. I’m inclined to think that one person first comes up with the thought and hten convinces another.
It only took one person to suggest that Obama was not really an American citizen and the belief grew as fast, perhaps, as Christianity did.
If your baseline for being a Christian is belief in salvation through Jesus’ resurrection how would you characterize the Galilean community who shared Jesus’ apocalyptic expectations and even accepted him as the Messiah before his ill-fated trip to Jerusalem? People who were perhaps not able or willing to pack up and head for Jerusalem? Who may or may not have come to a later belief in the resurrection?
thanks!
Yes, I wouldn’t call them Christian. But maybe others would!
Steven wrote “how would you characterize the Galilean community who shared Jesus’ apocalyptic expectations and even accepted him as the Messiah before his ill-fated trip to Jerusalem?”
Bart replied: “Yes, I wouldn’t call them Christian. But maybe others would!”
How about we call them the *last* Christians? The last people to live on this earth who actually knew what Jesus said and did, and followed him. The 100 people whom they converted, after the death of Jesus, had to believe as much in *them*, those original followers, as in Christ. The 1000 people whom they converted had to believe in even more people (and their stories).
And on and on, ’till we come to today. How many people, dead and alive, must we believe in, to imagine we understand Jesus and his teachings?
In my view, there is no reason to use the word “Christian” to describe the Jews “who actually knew what Jesus said and did, and followed him.” Jews who believe a man to be wise and maybe inspired and maybe the messiah and teacher are just Jews, not Christians. During his life there was no belief about his suffering, death or resurrection.
I look forward to your coming posts. I plan on facilitating a class at my church on how this specific NT canon came to be, what was left out, what might have made it. Any suggestions of other readings would be welcome. I have all of your books! Thanks for the blog. So informative.
One of my questions is, was the death and resurrection of Jesus always the central message? If the emphasis on the correct belief about the death and resurrection of Jesus was something that came later with Paul’s theology, then during these first initial days and months and perhaps even years prior to the work of Paul, perhaps there was a different emphasis or message that was the criteria for being a follower of Jesus?
Other followers of Jesus discussed other things as central to salvation (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas). But Paul didn’t invent the idea of Jesus’ death and resurrection, as I’ll discuss in a later post.
When did Christianity become Christianity, since it originally was a Jewish sect, not a distinct religion from Judaism? At what time does the term Christianity become not anachronistic? Is the Christianity that triumphed different from the Jewish sect of Jesus?
That’s what I’m trying to talk about in this thread.
I literally was interrupted while reading this blog as your book “How Jesus Became God” arrived. I bought this book hoping to get to the root of this very issue.
I would think you would want to keep it distinct. Is there a Mormon before Joseph Smith? Was there, according to historians, a Muslim before Mohamed? Was there a Jew before Ezra?
Those men could be considered founders of a religion, setting down doctrine and rules for a religion.
But Jesus did not seem interested in founding a new religion, so his early followers should be labelled separately from the ones who worshipped Jesus when he became deified.
I like “Jesusists”, “early followers”, even “proto-Christians” would do, though it lends a bit of inevitability to the founding of Christianity.
How about “Jesusarians”? I don’t think Ezra was the turning point into Judaism. Jews look to Moses mostly as their founder. Just as I was a child, then an adolescent, and then a man, there were first the Hebrews and their religion who became the Israelites who became the Jews (although Jacob Neusner says “Israelite” is still the proper term for at least religious Jews and “Jew” is a more secular or ethnic/cultural term). There are Old Testament figures who certainly were neither Israelite nor Jew–e.g. Abraham and Job.
I sometimes wonder if Israelite was simply a cult that lived among the many cities of the Levant. In some ways this interpretation of the use of the word Israel makes more sense than a northern kingdom based in Samaria.
So then, Israelite makes even more sense today than Jew, which was tied to one central city and one central temple.
As far as early Hebrew people looking to the Mosaic Law before Ezra, I am not sure if that is scripture based or not. I do not examples of the earliest written books being aware of Mosaic law.
The earliest books–the first so-called “Five Books of Moses,” the Torah–includes the Mosaic laws. “Teachings” is sometimes said to be a better translation of “Torah.”
Great post ! This is something that I have been giving a lot of thought to. If I may be so bold, let me ask how do we know that the earliest Jesus followers believed in the resurrection? From where I sit, we simply don’t know that for sure… it is an assumption based on later writings. It might be true, and I know almost everybody believes it, but it might not be true, we don’t really know. So since this is all speculation, let me propose another idea. Suppose that the idea of the resurrection came to Paul in one of his visions ( hallucinations ), and that the other early Christian churches of the time were preaching something very different, and that is why Paul considered their theology bankrupt.
DR Ehrman:
“Why did the first “Christians” come to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
According to John 20: 19-20, They believed that Jesus was raised from the dead because they saw Him.
John 20:19-20
19-When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
20-And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
“Who was the first to believe this?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think The first to believe, (according to John 20:6-9) was Peter and the other disciple was second.
John20:6-9
6-Simon Peter therefore also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he beheld the linen wrappings lying there,
7-and the face-cloth, which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself.
8-So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb entered then also, and he saw and believed.
9-For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.
“How long did it take to convince others?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It took only hours for the others to be convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead, (except for Thomas who wasn’t there with the other disciples) because Jesus Himself Appeared to them later that evening on the very first day of the week in which he had risen from the dead…
How was their belief spread?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Their belief was spread by their own testimony and witness….
When did that belief come to be transformed into the Christian idea that Jesus’ death and resurrection had brought salvation?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I will point out that Forgiveness of sins was mentioned by Jesus to the disciples when He first appeared to them that same evening of the first day of the week in which He rose from the dead….Forgiveness of sins is the first step to salvation and sanctification.
Except that Jews believed that their release from bondage and the gift of the Torah was their salvation. Forgiveness was acquired through being as righteous as they could according to the Torah, praying and repenting when they slipped, and through sacrifices at the Temple (and maybe elsewhere),. Salvation from the wages of sin was never the purpose of the hoped-for messiah. That was invented in the first century. You read the New Testament as though it was history. I don’t believe you have any good reason to.
Who were the first people to think of themselves as “Christian,” and did they use a word like “Christian” for themselves? Did they use words in Aramaic or Koïne to differentiate themselves before the latinization? I’ve been away for a spell, you may have covered this. In the same light, do you see modern Christianity as all that “essentially” different than those present at the Pentecost?
See Acts 11:26 and 1 Peter 4:16.
I suggest that the right way to look at Christianity is as an emergent phenomenon, like the emergence of a new species in biological evolution. It’s arbitrary as to where one draws the line between prior species (or religion) and new.
But the word “Savior” to the first Christians meant saved from the Apocalypse right? And later when Death and Resurrection became a major aspect of Christianity, the definition of Savior changed to saved from hell? (this is a question). My question extends to the word ‘salvation’? (Again sorry to be so far behind)
Yes, I’m not specifying “salvation from *what*”!
Yes I know. Independently, I’m trying to “connect the dots” from not only your blogs but your book(s) that I’m reading on kindle. It occurred to me that in addition to complex translation, etymology was also key? I hadn’t realized until reading your blogs that how contemporary Christians speak of “salvation” is NOT what the early Christians had in mind. Right?
Right! Paul would have been puzzled by the question “have you been saved?”
You’ve really thrown me with that one. I thought that is just what Paul meant. So what do you think he meant by “salvation”?
He meant the deliverance Jesus’ followers would experience when the rest of the world was destroyed at the second coming.
My take is that Mary Magdelene is the very first Christian – in the sense of defining a Christian as someone that has become emotionally overcome and astounded by something incredible (miraculous?) that they have come to personally discover about Jesus in the aftermath of his presumed death by Roman execution.
(Later on Paul’s experience would constitute something similar, as so with other witnesses, etc.)
It’s fair to say here that the very first Christians were all gnostic because they came to believe in something special about Jesus due to their own personal, visceral experience (knowing) – an experience that resultingly astounded their very being.
(And so it has been with mystical gnostic experience ever since down to the present.)
But, it was Mary Magdalene that was first – the founding mother of Christianity. The gospels point to her (and a few other women) that bothered to go seek out Jesus’s body for proper mortuary treatment.
Think of the film, Places of the Heart, the character played by Sally Fields, faced up to the grim task of preparing her husband’s body for burial. Likewise Mary Magdelene felt such a special bond toward Jesus that she was willing to take on that intimate and emotionally devasting task. The verses in Luke point out that she was leading a band of women followers of Jesus – she was already an adherent to his ministry.
The Gospel of John paints a most intimate discourse between Jesus and Mary M. Second century Gospel of Mary continues to position Mary M. as the pivotal Christian of that fledgling movement.
And the Egyptian Naassenes claimed to have been taught their doctrines by Mariamne, a disciple of James the Just – possibly the same Mary but with an endearing form of spelling. (For Gnostic readers Mariamne is also recognized as passably being Mary Magdalene – [Wikipedia for ‘Mariamne’], and Jospephus connects the name to the Herodian royal house, which the Gospel of Luke provides that connection too in respect to a member amongst the band of women followers lead by Mary Magdelene.)
A couple of people in the Hebrew Scriptures had been raised from death. When, in the story, Jesus raised Lazarus, Christianity wasn’t born because Jesus had raised someone from death. The idea that someone, including Jesus, was raised from death is within Jewish context. Being astonished at the miracle does not make one a Christian. Given the reasons you cite, I do not think it is fair to say the earliest Christians were Gnostic.Gnosticism is not defined by some nebulous emotional experience but by attaining the knowledge of who one really is–that is a being of light trapped in a dark body/world. Being a follower and lover and intimate of Jesus would have made one a Jew who believed he was either a great prophet or the messiah, not a Christian.
Your distinction between just believing that Jesus had been resurrected and believing that his resurrection had salvific power is one I’ve stressed a few times in the blog in expressing doubt whether we can call the very first believers in the resurrection Christians. Surely, Jews who continued to believe in Jesus as messiah even after he died must have seemed mighty strange Jews to their fellow Jews. But, since most Jews believed God alone was the Savior and that the messiah would be a different kind of non-divine saving figure, when some Jews finally began claiming that believing in the risen Christ is what brought salvation, they must have seemed not just another sect of crazy Jews but blasphemous and questionably Jewish at best. Of course, on the one hand, we have Paul who says that he received the Gospel from no man and said also that he received it from those who came before him. Personally, I think an argument from his ego and lofty view of himself is too strong to be overcome by the criterion of dissimilarity. He did not begin to express his Christology in writing until perhaps 17 years after his alleged vision. But most think his vision came within a few years of Jesus’ death. I’m looking forward to your thoughts on who and when Jews other than Paul might have moved from just believing Jesus would return in power and glory to rid the Jews of their enemies, re-establish the nation Israel, and usher in the Kingdom of God to having a Christology that included belief in him a the source of salvation that would save them from the wages of their sins (if that is a proper way to describe what you’ll be doing in your subsequent posts).
Was there somewhere in the Acts or in Paul’s letters where it is explicitly stated or can be inferred that Paul himself declared that the resurrection belief is the one doctrine that he shares with say Peter and James–others spreading the story of Jesus differently from him in regards to other beliefs?
Yes, he says this explicitly in 1 Cor. 15:3-5.
Bart,
I’m finding this series of posts absolutely fascinating and thought-provoking. I don’t envy you your task in pulling this together – but then that’s why you’re a scholar and I’m not – and I’m looking forward to reading your refined arguments and whatever conclusions can be drawn.
It had not occurred to me before, but I think it’s fairly self-evident that early ‘Christian’ groups were far from cohesive in terms of doctrines, practices and beliefs. The winners won, the losers lost and vanished (or at least faded), and the history was written by the winners.
As far as I am aware some/many/most/all of the various groups which arose claim that they have the ‘truth’ which they they obtained via direct apostolic succession. Such diverse groups today as the Orthodox church, RC, CofE, assorted fundies and down to Jehovah’s Witnesses can’t all be right, of course. I suspect none of them are.
Is it reasonable to assume that early Christian groups – insofar as they were in contact with each other – were in some sort of competition depending on which disciple/apostle they claimed to have received their teachings from? (Apart from the obvious Peter/Paul follow/don’t follow Jewish laws).
Yes, that appears to be the case, if we can judge by what Paul says in his letters (about other apostles).
Good thread, thank you.
The synoptic gospels portray Jesus as a sage of Second Temple Judaism. His sayings and teachings largely align with Hillel. As I have heard it used, the term Jesus Movement referred to Jews who had followed the teachings of Jesus during his lifetime, and continued doing so after he died. That meant it was a purely Jewish movement.
Despite the very long-standing tradition of the Eusebian view, I don’t think the ideas of Christianity began either with Jesus or with Jews in this Jesus Movement. The ideas are far more Greek than Jewish, and were right at home in the ideas of the Greek mystery religions. I think the original idea was that Jesus was the universal sacrifice they had been talking about. A sacrifice is required to die, not to come back to life.
We dream about what we have been thinking about during the day. As Dr. Ehrman noted in his course on the history of the Bible, Paul likely had a dream or a vision about Jesus after Jesus had died. Paul interpreted that as evidence that Jesus had risen from the dead. He wasn’t the first. It has been suggested that the very idea of an afterlife arose from people dreaming about deceased loved ones. As Dr. Ehrman suggested in that class, when Paul thought God raised Jesus from the dead, he wondered why. God must have thought Jesus was special. If God saw fit to resurrect him, then surely he wasn’t executed for his own sins. He must have died for the sins of others. AHA! A substitutionary sacrifice?
In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul told the Corinthians about what he had preached / delivered to them. He said he received it, but he didn’t say from whom. Most likely it was earlier Christians. Many think he is reciting something from an earlier creed.
I use the name Christian for people who believed Jesus was that universal sacrifice. Or later, for any who believed Jesus was a god.
A word is useful only when its meaning, in context, is common knowledge. A Christian is a person whose religion is the religion ABOUT Jesus. The religion of Paul. Those who believe Jesus had some spiritual / supernatural significance. The religion OF Jesus was Second Temple Judaism. The synoptic gospels make that very clear.
We have Paul’s theology from Paul’s writings, the earliest proto-orthodox Christian writings we have today. Thus we can’t trace those ideas farther back in time than Paul. Walter Bauer found evidence of other variants of Christianity that predated Paul. They include Egyptian Gnostic ideas and Marcionite ideas of Asia Minor.
The gospels were written 4-6 decades after the fact by Christians who never met Jesus, probably never visited Judea, didn’t speak the languages (Aramaic and Hebrew), and likely never met anyone who met Jesus. Their diaries are ancient bios narrative, not history. John especially makes no pretense of historical accuracy. That they say followers of Jesus met in the temple does not mean it really happened. And as others noted, if they had publicly espoused Christian ideas, they would never be allowed to meet in the temple or any synagogue. That finally happened in the Jerusalem synagogue in 90-95 CE. I think it took that long for Christian ideas to penetrate Judea into Jerusalem.
Throughout Tanakh, salvation meant salvation from your enemies (in battle). In the Jewish apocalyptic worldview (which Jesus held, according to the synoptic gospels), it meant escaping the punishment (on earth) of the evil people, and living in the idyllic kingdom of God with the good people (on earth). Not until later (very late first century) did people finally admit to themselves that it didn’t happen. Then they spiritualized it into either a state of being that was already there (Luke) or said it would happen in an afterlife. That last meaning is the only one which persists today.
I would like to see a scholarly comparison of the Christian peers to the proto-orthodox (Ebionites, Marcionites etc.), showing their beliefs. For example, we have no evidence the Ebionites believed in the resurrection.
I think the Ebionites definitely believed in the resurrection. They are never attacked by their enemies for doubting it, and if they didn’t believe in it, they would simply be Jews.
I’m responding to a comment today by SBrudney091941 but it isn’t showing up on the blog website.
“Had egalitarianism and freedom from too strict an observance of the law been achieved by the Jews whom Jesus taught and by their progeny in the first century, what would have been created would have been a Jewish society brought about by Jews that took Jesus’ message of egalitarianism and less legalism to heart.” — That did happen. Nearly every position Jesus took aligned with Hillel, one of the most respected and influential Jewish thinkers in history. But egalitarianism extended only to Samaritans and sinners (non-practicing Jews), never to Gentiles.
Jews did have respect for a category they called God-fearers. These were well-behaved Gentiles who obeyed what they considered the Noachide Laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah
Bart, these Jews were called Christian-Jews or Jewish Christians, but they did, however, have a sect called “The Way” (as recorded in Acts).
It would have been nice to comment this without having to scroll all the way down the page first…
I subscribe to Thomas Jefferson’s idea of what it means to be Christian:
“I am a Christian in the only sense Christ wished anyone to be – sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others.”
It always mystifies me why anyone would call the moral teachings of the Jew Jesus Christian. When we talk about Jesus’ moral teachings without any reference to–and especially without any belief in–his sacrificial and salvific significance, we are not talking about Christianity. We’re talking about Jewish interpretation of Judaism.
Interesting. Jefferson was wrong. He was an Episcopal, then a deist. He was never a Jew. Jesus was a Jew, and taught Second Temple Judaism. So then, you are Jewish.