Loading...I’ve been arguing that Luke’s Gospel originally may not have had the story of Jesus’ virgin birth but portrayed Jesus as being adopted by God to be his son at the baptism. In the previous post I explained one strategy that could be used to “tame” an otherwise important and beloved text when it held a view that could be seen as problematic. You could edit it. But there are other ways as I explain here (taken from a paper I delivered orally to a group of scholars)
******************************
A second strategy that could be used and was used by proto-orthodox Christians to constrain the reading of the text was by putting it in a canon of writings, a collection of texts with varying perspectives which, once placed together, affected how each one would be read.
I’ll not spend much time discussing this strategy, as it is familiar enough to all of us here. It was familiar enough to early Christians as well, as early as Irenaeus, who points out in a famous passage in Book 3 of his Adversus Haereses that various groups of heretics go astray in their thinking because they choose to follow the teachings of just one Gospel or another, rather than recognizing that there are four Gospels whose teachings need to be read in light of one another. And so, he says, the Ebionites err by following only Matthew, those who separate Jesus from the Christ err by reading only Mark, the Marcionites err in accepting only Luke, and the Valentinians err in following only John.
For Irenaeus, and those like him who advocated a four-Gospel canon, all four of these books
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!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
How can god/humans hold Jesus on a pedestal as a great human, from baptism and from virgin birth, born a god? My point is, if we believe Jesus is the son of god, he had a totally unfair advantage from other humans. With no real idea what humans deal with. Which makes it impossible for any human to compare themselves with Jesus or even try to be like Jesus. Jesus didn’t have to do anything he didn’t want to do. No human could control him from stories as a child. Nobody could bully him, him and his family wouldn’t starve or be killed. They were protected. They could have taken over Rome lol. If Jesus could truly heal just by people touching him, I pretty sure Roman’s or other with power would lock Jesus up and used him to heal their troops and families. I believe people use Jesus, used fear and hope, to gain power and control and the rest is history.
Right or wrong, I made my mind up long ago, even if god is real I wouldn’t want to follow him. Why? Because if you have the power to stop evil, and you refuse to stop evil, that makes you evil the same for humans. God won’t even warn humans when there’s going be mass killing at schools. Billions of humans spend their lives trying to help, heal, and make humanity better. Millions die to protect freedom. And our gods don’t seem to lift a finger to help.
Guess I’m a angry white man lol
Jesus Christ as a learnt in Sunday School, was God/man. Also taught miracles were not from divine nature. Thing about this for over 45 years. OK Jesus Christ was God/man, but his divine nature was overriding his human nature.- that;s where our Sunday school teachers were wrong. I’m probably wrong too as I am human & can’t understand the divine.
Fortunately I’m not in the Church hierarchy so I was not chosen & won’t be therefore judged by God- as many of those has caused the sheep to change behaviors when they can’t be obedient to what they spout.
If I remember correctly, I believe you see Philippians 2 as assuming pre-existence. Any thoughts on how Paul would have likely understood that?
I deal wit hthis at some length in my book How Jesus Became God. Paul appears to have thought of Jesus has a high-level divine being (not equal with God but divine nonetheless) (like the Chief Angel) who became human for the sake of salvation.
Question for Bart … on another topic …
I am interested in reading & studying the Enuma Elish (seven tablets of creation). Can you or Megan Lewis recommend a good English translation? Thank you.
Not sure what Megan would prefer, and she’s the expert. Most recently I’ve liked Stephanie Dalley’s Myths from Mesopotamia.
I got into a debate with a Fundamentalist Christian on Facebook who said that Jesus is the only way to eternal life. I argued if God exists then Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, and people from other religions can go to heaven. My argument was three-pronged based on statistics, reason, and Mark 25:31-46. My biblical argument was: Who can feed the hungry, give something to drink to the thirsty, invite the stranger in, and visit people in prison? Can Christians do that? Yes Can Jews do that? Yes Can Muslims do that? Yes Can Hindus do that? Yes Can Buddhists do that? Yes Can Atheists and people from other religions do that? Yes. Spread the good news! Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, and people from other religions can go to heaven. Since you are a bible scholar can you give me an argument that supports my position.
I think that’s absolutely the best text to go to. It’s worth noticing that the people who are brought into the kingdom don’t appear even to know who Jesus is (“Lord, when did we see you….). You might also note passages that indicate that Christ’s death is so powerful it will save *everyone*, e.g., Phil. 2:9-10; Romans 5:18. Your friend will have responses and lots of other verses, but these verses are themselves pretty explicit. Short story, I’m afraid to say, is that there’s no way you’ll convince him/her…
Hi Professor Ehrman, I have a blog suggestion for you. It’s the TV show “The Chosen”. I think the first season is available on youtube, or at least the first episode. Have you seen it yet?
Nope. Others have asked me though…
Thx Bart, this blog is a great example of why I enjoy subscribing to your service.
“Patripassianism” is new to me as is the alternate use of “Protevangelium” for the “Gospel” of James.
Wikipedia provides a pretty good definition of the former, but can you please enlighten us regarding the origin of latter term?
Also, I note that Irenaeus’ promotion of the necessary reading of the four gospels subsequently to be canonized ironically may be seen today as revealing the evolution of early Christian theology and specifically of the progressive elevation of Jesus’ heavenly status from Mark to John.
The Protevangelium was named that when it was first published in the modern period (in a Latin edition). The name means “Proto-Gospel” and it was called that because it maily deals with events *prior* to the Gospel of Jesus as in the NT, but that are themselves in a sense part of the Gospel message — kind of the Gospel before the Gospel.
Hello Bart,
I have a question about Gospel of John. In John 10 when Jesus is about to be stoned for blasphemy, he says his speech referring back to Psalms 82 which states that we are all Gods, children of the most high, and in short says if the word is true then why do you say I bladpheme because I call myself the son of God. My question is that I have heard several spiritual teachers on Youtube claim that in the original aramaic or greek text, (you would know better than I) that Jesus originally said “why do you say I blaspheme because I call myself “A” son of God” and not “THE” son of God. The claim is that A was changed to THE in order to make Jesus the only son of God and set him apart from us. Can you speak to whether this claim is accurate and/or could that type of change be made in the original language that Jesus spoke. Was there an “A” and “The” translation in that language that could have changed the meaning of what was actually spoken?
Thank you.
The main problme is that John was written in Greek, not in Aramaic, and there is nothing to suggest that the sayings of Jesus in John were originally Aramaic (that is, that John is accurately recording Jesus’ sayings in Greek translation of an Aramaic original) (and if someone objects to that view, then you can point out it is precisely what they are saying when they say that Jesus said “a” but John records “the”!). Even if they were origially in Aramaic, what is the evidence that the Aramaic didn’t say “the”? Why not just say that Jesus origihnally said “a” and that John misreported it for some reason? Either way you’d be saying that John is not accurately reporting what Jesus said.
Sorry if I was unclear in my question. I was wondering if the claim that Jesus’ statement being changed from “I am a son of God” to “I am the son of God” is actually something that is provable by interpreting what the original Greek texts read. I dont have any idea how someone gets a copy of the original greek versions and if there was even a distinction in greek between a and the. Just wondering if that claim is heresay or truth. Thank you fot the work you do. It is very enjoyable and enlightening.
I don’t think he ever says either in the Gospels. In mark the high priest asks Jesus, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed one”? And Jesus replies, “Yes, I am.” (“the” son, not “a” son) Throughout John he calls himself “the” son in relation to “the” father, not “a” son.
“all four of these books need to be read in conjunction with each of the others”
You’ve discussed this in one way or another for a very long time, making it clear that you actually CAN’T do this, not without the result being something that ISN’T in ANY of the texts and also, by necessity, contradictory . The divinity of Christ and the Trinity are clearly, obviously, hodgepodges of various contradictory beliefs that had to be rationalized later with absurd and terrible reasoning that no decent philosopher would accept out of their youngest students.
Very smart people are known for being very good at rationalizing the most ridiculous beliefs. Just look at how muddled and confused this is “read John to see that Christ was with God in the beginning”. This is a laughable claim for someone who believes god is past-eternal, do I need to spell it out? It’s industrial levels of ‘[A=B AND A≠B] is true’ thinking and it’s obvious. There’s simply NO reason to give such shoddy reasoning ANY deference, they’re blinded by belief and that allows them to spew utter, and obviously so to anyone without those beliefs, nonsense.
Yes, just to be clear for those not following the context of your comment: the opening quotation is decidedly not my view but the view I indicated was held by the church father Irenaeus (and, well, virtually every other church father, not to mentoin Christian reader.)
Your whole reply was to something I made obvious with “You’ve … made it clear you CAN’T do this” In another post your whole reply was to a single side comment I made in a long post. Both of them dealt with what you claim to be very concerned about–folks using their theological beliefs to harm others. Specifically, what can lead to a lot of good people doing these very bad things and it starts with the ridiculous deference given to religion and their theologies that require belief that it’s true that [A=B AND A≠B]. That’s how you get so many ‘christians’ attacking the LGBTQ community, cuz is says it’s bad in the bible, right next to a LOT of other prohibitions that they ignore, justifying their sick behavior not only that it’s in the bible but that the bible is the inerrant word of god without contradiction, both claims you’ve made a career of exposing as absurd. You’re legitimizing this terrible behavior by claiming it’s somehow OK to have realms of knowledge/theologies that at their core require belief in contradictions AKA nonsense, that such nonsense isn’t actually nonsense–you’re refusing to acknowledge the ensuing consequences.
Well, as I said to someone else a couple of days ago on the blog (possibly you? I don’t remember), quoting Alice, but now in relationship to the acceptance of the Christian faith: “Nonsense? *I’ve* heard nonsense compared with which *that* would be as sensible as a dictionary.”
I personally think it’s completely wrong to assume that to be a Christian means being a hateful racist, LGBTQ-hater, Bible thumping fundamentalist. And it’s probalby a nonstarter (if we are interested in dialogue) to say that people who are far better versed in various sciences, philosophy, literary theory, history, and on and on than me who are also Christian suscribe to “nonsense” is a nonstarter. I know lots of Christians in all these academic fields, some of them flippin brilliant. *They* reject fundamentalist Christianity as completely wrong-headed, and they think that anyone who thinks that attacks on fundamentalism are attacks on Christianity are just speakin’ nonsense.
I have watched a LOT of your videos, you OPENLY laugh and SCOFF at those who claim the bible is the inerrant word of god without contradiction. But, when the Trinity is discussed, something that is absolutely and absurdly full of contradiction at its most fundamental level, suddenly that’s a ‘realm of knowledge’ that is immune to the most basic logic and reason and rationality. How do you justify that?
Would it help if I stopped calling it nonsense and used ‘fiction’ instead? You’re an atheist, what could Theology possibly be but something akin to discussing Game of Thrones or Tolkien’s books AS IF THEY WERE REAL?
Do you deny my claim that very smart people can believe extremely ridiculous things and come up with amazingly complex stories and other rationales to support their beliefs? Isn’t the fact that there are numerous huge religions with MASSIVE theologies, dogmas, creeds etc proof of that? What is the difference between a theological belief used to harm others and one that isn’t so used? That’s a hard one, isn’t it?
Because you can SHOW that the Bible has contradictions on teh very terms/grounds that people say it does not. They are using Aristotelian logic. The doctrine of the Trinity is not based on that kind of logic, for example, that proposes the law of non-contradiction.
The difference between a religious view/practice that harms others and one that does not is that one of them harms others and the other does not.
“An angel of the Lord then appears and tells her to bring her burning hand to the child and to lift him up; she does so and is healed.”
From this I read that the angel did the healing. Dr. Ehrman, you think a baby Jesus performed a miracle of this healing as an infant baby? So, you take a position/assumption that he was born divine/god? My personal view is that he was not born divine (I don’t believe in his divinity at this moment) so I don’t see him performing a miracle here. He could have, as a grown adult, or a young boy, but not as a newborn baby.
I am deeply thankful for your blog and this community by the way. I finally stopped going to regular Christian church this year. Although my experience at the end was negative, I am feeling a loss. I lost some friends by telling them what I believe. By God’s grace I found a group called Biblical Unitarians who welcome healthy theological discussions, a group of monotheist Christians. I fellowship with them for now. And I come here and feel encouraged. I enjoy learning new things here.
The text is pretty clearly saying either that Jesus or God did it.
Loss: I know what you mean. Congrats on finding a new group!
All the best! 🙂