Loading...I mentioned in my previous post that I had recently looked back over my first trade book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. I don’t think I had read the preface in 20 years, and I wasn’t frankly, expecting to like it much when I decided to read it again. But as it turns out, I rather like it.
I’ve known other people like this, who rather appreciate the things they’ve written. (!) But in any event, there are a few points here that I don’t recall making ever again, especially about how “evidence” should play a role when discussing the historical Jesus (or the historical *anything*, from antiquity to most recent times; name your topic, and feel free to bring in both politics and religion!).
Here is what I say there:
******************************
Scholars have written hundreds of books about Jesus (not to mention the thousands of books written by non-scholars). A good number of these, mainly the lesser known ones, are written by scholars for scholars to promote scholarship; others are written by scholars to popularize scholarly views. The present book is one of the latter kind. I really don’t have a lot to say to scholars who have already spent a good portion of their lives delving into the complex world of first-century Palestine and the place that Jesus of Nazareth occupied within it. And frankly, having read tons of the books written by scholars for scholars, I don’t think anyone else has much more to say either. This is a well-beaten and much-trod path.
There does seem, though, to be room for another book for popular (i.e., general-reading) audiences. It’s not that there aren’t enough books about Jesus out there. It’s that there aren’t enough of the right kind of book. Very, very few, in fact.
For one thing, most popular treatments are inexcusably
Want to keep reading? Join the blog, and the post is all yours. So are all the others, five a week going back to 2012. Best deal in the known universe… Click here for membership options
Matthew 19:12 “For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Is this Jesus saying his followers should preferably be unmarried and chaste?
Probably. It was a much debated saying in early Christiainty, sometimes allegedly leading Christians to castrate themselves to be truly pious.
Man, I had just got over the trauma of that circumcision post, now this!
In regard to Jesus’s apocalyptic anticipations, something that never ceases to amaze me is the fact that (Christian) people by the millions tend to believe in apocalyptic unfoldings, while, at the same time, pay little -if not, any at all- attention to Jesus’s apparently major failure to predict these unfoldings correctly. Instead, they have devised clever (or, more accurately, intellectually dishonest) ways out of this obvious mismatch, clinging on to their redemptive expectations.
Here’s a fun exercise (for a certain value of fun): Analyze a Christmas hymn (I suggest “Oh Come All Ye Faithful”) for Christology and what Biblical sources the author draws upon.
Yup, I do it every Xmas season, over and over again.
Why the yuletide limitation? Let’s all open our Apologetic hymnals and turn to “A Mighty Fortress is our Argument from Authority.” Followed by a rousing chorus of the Inerrancy antiphon: “Rock of Special Pleading.” And it seems to me that Gregorian Chanting the venerable, RCC canticle, “Argumentum ad Antiquitatem,” would make a perfect recessional! 😉
Your preface encapsulates the reason I’ve grown so trusting of you. All your work that I have read follows the same evidential paradigm. As a Christian, I have often been confronted with staunch opposition to you from other believers, simply on the grounds that 1) You are an atheist, and 2) you write something that challenges their embedded beliefs. However, I have found you to be the most impartial provider of evidence and insight regarding Jesus, scripture, and all available peripherals. There probably isn’t much ROI in this for you, but if you wrote a bible commentary, I would pay $1000 for it without question.
I could not agree with the jscheller comment here, more. And I would also pre-order a $1000 Ehrman Bible Commentary. My own Christian/post-Christian history is so aligned with that of Bart Ehrman, it probably predisposes me toward profound respect for his work — I keep reading every next book and wondering when he will say something that does not resonate in a VITAL way for me — but nope, it never happens — as has happened with so many other authors in the genre of biblical scholarship.
Add me as another one. The dedication towards seeking the most probable truth – whatever the outcome – is what I respect the most.
Or John Shelby Spong saying the apostle Paul was gay or the author that wrote that my great-great grandfather was a drug addict ( Thomas j box , he’s on Wikipedia!) why?
Because he was shot twice and taken prisoner at Cedar Mountain then shot two more times at Gettysburg.
Sometimes authors take liberties that take away from great information
Spongs book is great too but that part was a distraction…. how do they know based upon assumptions or in Spongs case his assertion about Paul’s interest in “ grace”
All of it though… fascinating and thanks!
Hey ldr,
I remember Spong saying that years ago, and then never hearing it again. Well check this out from Centreplace in Canada – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv8DvdlDYss
I’m prepared to say that Paul was gay after considering all of the evidence.
I’m in for $1000 *
Thats the book I’m missing. A chapter by chapter commentary on the NT by Bart so I can look up any verse or story and see what was behind it, what situation it was addressing, how it compares to other versions of the same story, is it likely Jesus did or said something like it, etc.
* actually $500
A writer doesn’t get excused from the rules of evidence just because the intended audience is general rather than scholarly. If anything, the responsibility to provide evidence is even greater, since this audience can’t be presumed to have the benefit of having studied the evidence for themselves.
Agreed. The burden of proof always lays upon the proposer of any argument or theory.
An enthusiastic “Second,” dankoh — with an added, “Hear, Hear!”
It’s great to see a fellow Christian appreciate the incredible value Dr. Ehrman brings to those of us who recognize that it’s pretty difficult to be set free by the truth as given to us by the incarnate Word, if we don’t actually know what he said it is! (I must add, however, that though the professor’s pearls of wisdom are of great price, that $1,000 book still strikes me as being a bit pricey. 😉)
A quick question for the professor to help clarify how and where the teachings of Jesus need to be understood within the context of his apocalyptic patrimony/worldview: Is there any distinction to be drawn between the phrases “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven” (or did he use these synonymously)?
I think you’re confusing me with someone else, since I’m not and never have been a Christian. I study the history of Judaism and Christianity and greatly appreciate Bart’s scholarship, both his more academic material and his outreach to general audiences.
You’re absolutely right. My bad. I meant to hit the “Reply” link for the post that then appeared immediately before yours by our fellow blogger, jscheller — who suggested he would pay $1,000 for a bible commentary by Dr. Ehrman. (While I agree having such a Magnum Opus by the good professor would be grand, I can’t actually imagine SPENDING one to put a copy on my own bookshelf. 😉) Apologies, dankoh, for the misclick.
Have you every had a debate with anyone with only the debating topic “ Was Jesus an Apocalyptic Prophet?”?
Not with a scholar in public, no. But in tons of other contexts, with scholars and non-scholars alike.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
Would Paul’s letters be counted as primary sources for how Paul viewed the roles of women in church? And what would a forgery- like Timothy- be counted as? Or since they’re in English, would they not be primary?
Thank you!
Yes, Paul’s actual letters are the seven and only primary sources for Paul’s views of women (and anything else). The later forgeries indicate what later authors WANTED Paul to say and think. But of course they were not written in English but Greek.
This was exactly the point I was aiming for in my last comment. If academics are to proscribe writing for the popular audience, then it’s no surprise that popular books are so often such travesties. I totally understand why someone who’s made it their life’s work to gain great expertise on a matter would choose not to wrestle in the mud with every hack who decides they know when the Bible says the world’s going to end, but there is a dire need for substance for people who want good information. By sequestering themselves of from popular discourse and then looking down on the resultant mess, aren’t academics partly guilty of creating the situation- of at least, doing nothing to abate the flow of bad information?
And, in that case have academics, essentially, given up their right to look down on a situation they help maintain?
All this to say that I’m glad there are folks like you who do deign to teach the great unwashed in your field. Like a biblical Carl Sagan.
Every Thursday my fellow researchers and I meet in a nearby pub for lunch with our departmental professor (Peter Oakes) to discuss how things are going. This week we were asked how we keep up with recent scholarship in our field of interest. We went around half the table before time expired and I could chip in, but I would have said this blog is where I occasionally pick up good pointers for extra reading (Joel Marcus’ work on John the Baptist is a good example).
Many cited theological journals as their primary sources, so I would like to ask you, Bart, how do you keep up with scholarship in your field, and what would you recommend to others interested in the historical Jesus?
Somewhat related to this question is something else I would like to ask: who among the next generation of scholars are the most worthy of giving attention to at the moment? Who do you think could fill the shoes of the likes of Sanders, Wright, Allison, Ehrman, Meier, Marcus, Kloppenborg, Crossan, Borg, and Hurtado?
I keep my eye on all the scholarship, yes; but I tend actually to *read* what is relevant for my own work or what seems exceedingly interesting. Probalby no one can keep up with it and be a reasearcher themselves. And I don’t know about the next generation. I’ve had students from UNC and Duke who are amazingly smart and gifted; whether they emerge as leaders in teh field or not, who knows? Most of the ones you listed were not suspected as being prominent at the outsdet of their careers.
Thanks for the response.
Do you mind if I ask what your favourite journals are?
And could you make some recommendations of journals that touch on the history of early Christianity, and research on the canonical gospels, please?
In biblical studies I’d say the top ones include JBL, NTS, ZNTW, and NovTest. For early Xty: JECS and VC.
There is *nobody* like you making these books! Light-hearted.
So, “All this would be a prelude to the arrival of a new order on earth, the Kingdom of God.”
The Kingdom of Obodas I kicked Herodian butt in AD 36!
Then Petra had a beautiful and kind existence through AD 106. One man’s lifespan, as there was a contract (Wiki doesn’t note it) that the transfer would be after their Savior’s passing:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbel_II_Soter
Then came the first Christian emperor in 244 AD, Augustus Philip. He made games with Petra’s Dusara emblem:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Arab
Then Christianity spread farther, becoming the Western Welfare state. Very good.
Bart, do you know when the phrase, “In the Year of Our Lord” was first used in Christianity or Judaism?
Because today — I read about a Nabataean inscription in Israel in ~AD 86 for their Savior:
“In the eighteenth year of our lord Ra’bel, who brought life and deliverance (to his people)”
page 9/16 preview: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27924856?seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents
I can’t find Jewish Antiquity using this phrase. Did Rome use, “In the Year of Our Lord” prior to AD 525 and Dionysius Exiguus?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini
No, I don’t think so. The dating in Roman circles was normally from the alleged time of the founding of Rome.
Linking Christianity with the Welfare State is not valid as far as the UK is concerned. Key players such as William Beveridge, Clement Attlee and Aneurin Bevan (supported by his wife Jenny Lee) were all atheist/agnostic. The failure of Christian charity to solve issues helped to motivate their work.
That’s great information that I’ll enjoy googling, but I don’t think Jesus called what he did Christianity? Belief is a spectrum, not a binary anyway ☺️
Even if the wonderful William, Clement and Aneurin saw *deficiencies* in charity, hoo boy — wait till you see the non-Western world in regards to federal charity of their same time. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I’ve done a lot of google.
Nabataea is the first place that I see government wealth redistribution. (Imo Jesus was patrilineally Nabataean.) Archaeologists marvel that the poorest in Petra were nutritionally sound.
Gov healthcare grafitti:
“And he [Obodas] works without reward or favor, and he, when death tried to claim us, did not let it claim us, for when a wound of us festered, he did not let us perish”
Meanwhile, Roman graffiti was in the gutter, most Jews were illiterate so no graffiti, and Celtic Britons were in woolly mammoth togas.
When you follow the DNA of ancient Anatolia (that Arabized Nabs from Gaia, and ~1/2 of Galilee was og from), you find that DNA highest now in Denmark, Britain (so not the many indigenous Brits, like the lovely Cornish) the Nordic Union and their diaspora. The mindset traveled with:
https://www.harvard.com/book/a_short_history_of_humanity/
Hello Dr. Ehrman
I’m a little confused about the Sanhedrins intentions with their handing Jesus over to the Roman authorities. What in your opinion was their end goal (if they had any)? Prison, banishment, death? Something else?
Thank you
I think this is very fuzzy territory. My sense is that they wanted Jesus removed from the public eye because of the possibility of a riot; or maybe they did want him executed as a trouble maker, and when they found that he was calling himself the future king, realized it really was a big problem.
Not meaning to appeal to stereotypes here, but I can’t help noticing that for all the high-profile contentiousness Jesus had with Pharisees, it wasn’t until he went to the Temple and disrupted business during the busiest selling season of the year that he got himself into legal hot water. It looks to me like it was crossing the Sadducees — who both ran the Temple and had the ear of the Roman occupation force — that got him taken out. (Which is not to say that the Pharisees he so relentlessly and publicly insulted shed any tears at this turn of events…)
Yes, in the Gospels (and almost certainly in reality), the Pharisees had nothing to do with Jesus’ death.
Unless you believe John.
Have you read either of the the books blogger, Moshe, mentions? If so, what is your assessment of them? In any case, do you find the hypothesis that Jesus was a (presumably former and apostate) Pharisee plausible?
Do you agree with the estimate by Josephus that there were actually only a few thousand Pharisees? If so, that would be too many for them to have all been personally acquainted (even from week-long, national Pharisee conventions), but it seems too few for so salient a point as Jesus actually having been one of their own to go completely unremarked anywhere in the record. Obviously, there is no mention of it by any of the gospel authors despite their recounting numerous and antagonistic confrontations. Neither did Paul ever note that his original mission was to deal with the followers of a rogue member of his OWN sect!
Still, it would explain how the peasant son of a manual laborer from the Galilean outback acquired such astonishing depth and breadth of knowledge of the Chosen People’s history and scripture, as well as his keen philosophical insights. Might Jesus have spent the decade before he began his public ministry as an apprentice Pharisee?
No, I’m afraid I don’t read blogs. And yes, I suspect Josephus wasn’t far off. It’s only whenyou read the Gospesl that you think that the Pharisees were many thousands, standing on the corner of every field of grain on the sabbath to make sure no one ate any… And yes, I really don’t think Jesus was one of them. They just had contact. At least according to th eGospels Some schoalrs think the Pharisess are the Jewish enemies of the Gospel writers (or at least Mark) so they have put them back into Jesus’ story.
Your caution about spin the gospels might have put on confrontations between Jesus and the Jewish establishment is well-advised. But even assuming the authors were so adept that they all might have qualified for Employee of the Year at the Ministry of Truth, the remarkable knowledge Jesus brought to the disputes (notwithstanding with whom) must have to come from somewhere.
The obvious alternative would be that he spent his “lost decade” at Sadd U. But that seems an even more unlikely alma mater for him than Pharis State.
Aside from the similarly conspicuous absence of any mention of this in the record (there notably being even fewer Sadducees than Pharisees), surely a country bumpkin from Nazareth wouldn’t have had the pedigree/connections to get into the elite sect he ultimately annoyed to death. (His own, that is.) Not to mention that the teachings the gospels do preserve seem even more at odds with the Jews Templar than with his ritual-de-rigueur antagonists.
Jesus’ radical pacifism surely precludes any erstwhile association with zealot insurrectionists. Not to mention that a group whose end is fomenting violent resistance would have had little use or regard for erudition as a means.
Of course…
The similarity between the two, essential teachings of the Anointed and Awakened One(s) — eschewing ALL worldly attachments, including home, occupation and even family, and acting with uncompromising love and compassion for ALL, including (perhaps especially) one’s enemies — has long engendered speculation that Jesus may have spent, rather than “lost,” the decade before his ministry studying in the lands of the wisemen from the east.
But as you have persuasively argued, a Jewish peasant from the sticks would not have had the wherewithal or opportunity (nor, I might add, inspiration) to undertake such a daunting sojourn.
However, five centuries is certainly enough time for proselytizing apostles of the Buddha to have reached the western end of the Silk Road and brought his teachings TO Judea. Indeed, Mathew’s strange tale of the gifts Jesus received at birth — bequeathed BY wisemen from the east — would make some sense as a cryptic homage to the source of his radical, non-Jewish (and far more theologically sophisticated) teachings.
Since you obviously don’t consider divine inspiration by the Holy Spirit an option, what is left? How DID the peasant son of a manual laborer from the hinterlands come by such comprehensive knowledge and astonishing philosophical insights?
The big problem, of course, is that it is very difficult indeed to know how many of Jesus’ sayings go back to him. I would say that Jesus may indeed have unusually penetrating insights, but I would not at all call him philosophical, in the sense of actually tacklig issues with sophisticated knowledge (or any knowledge) of actual philosophy from his day. No one would mistake him for a PHilo of Alexandria, e.g., let alone a pagan Hellenistic philosopher.
The degree to which Hellenistic philosophy might be found between the lines of the authentic words of Jesus is a tantalizing question. But the profound influence it had on Christianity — completely transforming an esoteric sect within Judaism — clearly dates to some time after the movement was embraced (and ultimately commandeered) by former pagans.
As you have insightfully observed, a chronological assessment of the canonical gospels strongly suggests growing (arguably, corollary) antisemitism over the last half of the 1st century as Jesus went from the Jewish rabbi of Mark, Matthew and Luke (perforce including Q, M and L) to the “Jesus of the Greek Academy” portrayed by John.
The last gospel lacks any trace whatever of the incredibly powerful, illustrative parables that were the signature teaching style of the Jesus in the first three — a void that author filled with grandiose pronouncements he uniquely (and dubiously) attributed to Jesus, requiring the implausible supposition that these were somehow omitted by all of his canonical coauthors!
The Gospel of Thomas is manifestly gnostic in conception and far more inscrutably mystical than any of those in the canon. Whatever its provenance, that account must, likewise, postdate the Pagan Reformation.
So, riddle me this.…
If our third president (and wannabe textual critic) had extended his gospel redactions to include ALL identifying specifics — leaving only the individual, disconnected teachings of Jesus — could a reader mistake the scrupulously ethical, doomsday preacher of the first three gospels for the fourth one’s self-proclaimed divinity who came to earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men?
Assuming that Jesus never heard of Philo or the Buddha, never studied with the Pharisees or the Sadducees, and that there is no Holy Spirit who could have served as heavenly tutor, my original question becomes all the more salient.
Exactly when and where did Jesus manage to acquire his extensive knowledge of Jewish history and scripture — a familiarity with and understanding of such breadth and depth that he could (more than) hold his own in disputes with luminaries of the highly-privileged, well-educated establishment?
We’ll never know (in this world, anyway) how many things there are in heaven and earth that Jesus might have dreamt of in his philosophy. But we CAN be quite certain that he was an illiterate, peasant, day-laborer from the Galilean hinterlands.
So, what explains his astonishing smartitude?
I often wonder. He may have been an uneducated genius/wiseman. It would make a lot of sense.
We certainly agree on Jesus being a “genius/wiseman.” But there can’t be many, believers or un-, who would dispute that.
We differ on the existence of a “Holy Spirit” (for lack of a better appellation) who, presumably after much prayerful beseeching, “descended upon” (for lack of a better rubric) the man, Jesus — apparently at his baptism. (Bodhi tree not required; but be careful what you wish for!)
Genius is an uncommon, but entirely corporeal, trait. Wisdom may (and the ability to perform miraculous deeds must) be divinely inspired/empowered. But I don’t see “tutor” as a likely part of the Holy Spirit’s job description. Thus, genius/wiseman is necessary, but not sufficient.
How could whichever among the teachings of Jesus ARE authentic, possibly have come from an illiterate day-laborer who remained “uneducated”?
Jesus MUST have had his own 1st-century, Professor Ehrman. But UNC is on the other side of the planet (and couldn’t come along until after the invention of basketball in any case.😉)
The synoptics clearly insinuate that Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist before launching his own ministry. Since Duke is also ruled out as a scholastic contender, from whence do you think the the Doomsday Duo came?
Aside from a very brief mention of Jesus by Josephus (apparently emended by later copyists), the only surviving, 1st-century evidence that he ever even existed is in Christian apologia. Most of that deals with issues of the aborning church, providing little of use in a quest of the historical Jesus, i.e., what he actually said and did during his ministry — pretty much limiting us questers to the four, RCC-approved gospels.
Notably, In all of these Jesus of Nazareth and John the Baptist are clearly singing from the same hymnal. Pharisees and Sadducees, of course, shared their apocalyptic hopes and expectations. But that could be said of the whole congregation.
For John and Jesus the arrival of the Son of Man was so imminent and held such profoundly calamitous consequences that for them ALL other issues and concerns paled to insignificance. If the lyrics of their eschatological tune were not attributed, would we even know which of them said “Some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power” and which that “The axe is already laid at the root of the trees”?
We can infer from the accounts of both the (agenda-driven) gospel authors and the (disinterested) historian, Jospehus, that John the Baptist had greater renown than Jesus during their contemporaneous ministries.
The Jewish quisling/historian provides a significantly more extensive entry on John than the passing mention he gave Jesus — including an observation that popular opinion attributed the destruction of Jerusalem to divine wrath over the execution of the prophetic “Baptizer” rather than of the putative “Messiah.” Aside from offering a more plausible explanation for John’s demise than Matthew’s claim that Herod made his head into a party favor, there don’t appear to be any inconsistencies whatever about John in the five accounts.
In addition to the Baptizer’s greater prominence at the time, it should be safe to assume that a quest of the historical John — what HE actually said and did during his ministry — should not be as hampered by the church’s post-Nicaean, doctrinal cleansing that eradicated (deliberately or by conscious neglect) all unapproved records Jesus.
Given that the aforementioned sources strongly suggest that John and Jesus were, at least, in harmony, if not singing in unison, did anything survive to compare the preaching of the TEOTWAWKI choir members?
It’s a bit hard to say because *most* of our evidence about John comes from the Gospels; Josephus portrays him differently, but arguably compatibly. You may wan to chedk out Joel Marcus’s book on John.
I appreciate the book recommendation. But my interest in the apocalyptic prophet of the first millennium is limited to whatever light his ministry might shed on that of his counterpart of the new millennium. So narrow an end doesn’t really justify fiddy bucks (used?!) worth of means. Speaking of recommendations BTW, your own book on the latter was very illuminating and well worth the investment. 🙂
An unacquainted reader could only guess at which of these gadflies called establishment luminaries a “brood of vipers” and which likened them to “whitewashed tombs… full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth.” Clearly, the two had more than a passing affinity.
Top hits from the (all-knowing and cost-free) Oracle of Mountain Hill all concur on “Antiquities of the Jews” as the ONLY 1st-century source outside of the gospels for evidence that John the Baptist ever even existed.
Incidentally, I was somewhat chagrined to discover in the process that I misremembered Jospehus adding that popular opinion attributed the destruction of Jerusalem to divine annoyance over John’s execution when he actually said that Yahweh’s pique over Herod’s wantonness had brought the destruction of the king’s army several decades earlier.
Having made his record straight…
The Josephus pericope on the hermit in the camel-hair coat recounts only calls to ritualistic repentance.
While the ascetic recluse may have rhetorically lost his head in the throes of some of his more “highly agitated” preaching about “practicing righteousness towards each other, and piety towards God,” his eventually doing so literally surely must have been provoked by a more incendiary, political faux pas.
But what?
The account of John’s abbreviated career by the Jewish historian — the only record not found within Christian apologia — includes no hint whatever that he held the same apocalyptic worldview as Jesus. Josephus makes no mention of the Baptist spouting either TEOTWAWKI exhortations generally OR hurling antagonistic, hellfire-and-damnation reprobations at Pharisees and Sadducees particularly. Nor do gospel authors Mark or John say anything about this.
Does the notoriety of the doomsaying prophet with the bizarre diet arise from something more than these five works? Or does his reputation for having been the same kind of fire-breathing apocalypticist as his second cousin trace exclusively to, and stand entirely on, Q?
Doesn’t scholarly prudence demand that so notorious an imputation not depend on one, solitary source? (Indeed, a SECOND-HAND one at that — even in the autographs!)
You may want to read the book about John the Baptist and the evidence of his views by Joel Marcus (a some -time contributor to the blog and one od the top experts on the NT in the country).
Tim, here are a couple of books you should look at. I find them convincing, but even if you don’t, they will broaden and deepen your view of the subject.
Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus (1985) by Harvey Falk
Jesus the Pharisee (2003) by Hyam Maccoby
Thanks for the book suggestions.
Two things about Jesus are undisputed — even by non-Christians who reject the idea that he was in any sense divine and atheists who deny that there IS a God to have a “Word” to “Incarnate”:
1. He was born a peasant around 4 BCE in the impoverished, illiterate hinterlands of an uncultured province on the remote, eastern frontier of Roman civilization, where he initially eked out a subsistence living in some construction trade.
2. Around 25 CE this unschooled day-laborer emerged from obscurity an undocumented, but much admired, itinerant rabbi who achieved significant, local renown in only a year or three.
Jesus’ fame may have come in part because he purportedly had miraculous powers, especially for healings and exorcisms. But it was mostly for the very reasons we have the gospels two millennia later — his powerful insights on ethics and spiritual attainment that were not only philosophically profound but (even more important) emotionally compelling, made credible by his uncompromising principles and surpassing command of Jewish history, theology and scripture.
Unless you believe Jesus was personally tutored by the Holy Spirit (I don’t), so humble a nobody from nowhere must have acquired such foundation-rattling, still-persisting knowledge/sagacity somehow from somewhere.
As a Marxist myself, I don’t know of any Marxist who would claim that Jesus was a Marxist, that’s flat out anachronistic. Several Marxists have claimed Jesus was a Communist, though even that involved retroactively using a term most likely created in the 1790s to apply to ancient history. Though I do make the claim that Jesus was a Communist, I know that the claim demands a greater latitude in definition than common usage in the US, which has mainly used “communist” and “Marxist” as negative terms in the service of pro-capitalist propaganda.
Jesus owned no property (Mt. 8:20), was deeply concerned for the poor (Lk. 6:20), commanded giving to the poor without expecting repayment, and his disciples used a common purse. Acts 2:44f describe a communistic system of sharing among thousands of new followers (Most likely exaggerated).
Further, Marxists like myself hold that economic and political systems are never absent in any historical event, so we apply Marxist categories to our study of history, including Christian origins.
The main point of a Marxist analysis of Jesus is that he must not be interpreted as impartial on matters of wealth, nor in favor of gaining wealth at the expense of others.
My sense is that when peole say Jesus was a Marxist they mean “in principle,” just as they mean when they say that he was a feminist or a capitalist.
Jesus clearly preached — and practiced — a communal lifestyle which his disciples continued to follow. But without their charismatic leader to inspire subsequent generations, that “share and share alike” bonhomie apparently died with them.
The crucial point here is that the from-each/to-each philosophy Jesus advocated was a spiritually-inspired, life choice. As I noted in a different thread, if he ever lobbied the Sanhedrin to translate this idea into a system of legally-mandated wealth redistribution, my Bible must be missing some pericopes.
IMHO Jesus not only didn’t, but wouldn’t, do that. Charity commanded at sword-point is hardly charitable. It will not only do nothing to move the “donor” closer to God or man, but more likely provoke anger and resentment.
Further, it may be nearly as destructive to the beneficiary since the gratitude one naturally feels at another’s generosity devolves into a sense of entitlement and encourages trading self-respect for subsistence and permanent dependency as a ward of the state.
Not to mention that the rich and powerful have the wherewithal to manipulate “the system” to their own advantage. Instead of improving the lot of the poor window (Mk 12:41-42), they will end up getting one of her small copper coins.
Thanks Dr Ehrman. I do agree with you but, just to play Devil’s Advocate for a moment, I have come across some closed minded scholars who have dismissed new ideas from non-scholarly sources out of hand without properly investigating them and have just assumed that they would be worthless. I accept that scholars’ reading time is precious but some ideas from non-scholarly sources may have merit.
Yes, I agree that all ideas from all sources should always be considered. But I’d also say that someone who has not spent thousands of hours reading thousands of books and articles is less likely to come a across an idea that is new than someone who has not done all that. But I certainly learn things from blog members, or am given ideas that hadn’t yet occurred to me!
“If they are going to take you on a trip through history, you have the right to know which map they’ve decided to use…” Incredible heuristic.
Jesus is a Nabataean lolol
I’ve never written a whole book but I’ve freelanced for majors before going hermity, years ago.
So notice how I said *whole* book?
That’s a clause. I wrote a chapter in a book on Star Trek that I even got paid ffor,while living on no money. I found it in major libraries later along on the West Coast. It was all such a good feeling. (I had, between those two events, a Star Trek scriptwriter fiance too rich for libraries.)
John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son…”
*record scratch*
Only begotten? What kind of other sons are there?! “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only son.”
What’s up with these very precise clauses? I’d say that just like the Greeks that took figurative representation to such a great height, the People of The Book are good at precision.
I know who has only one *begotten* son, chosen by lot, in Arabia Felix tho — Obodas
Oh btw no one believe that Nabataeans influenced Jesus please — that’s my book! haha
As far as revealing the roadmap, I also like “mystery schools,” like the Secret Gospel of Mark. 0% pushback in not putting pearls before swine.
Oh, what’s up with a stone-stacker like Jesus and his multiple pearl fixations?
“So when you’re mercantiling purely ornamental goods, as we do around here, and you find a pearl that’s rare, you sell all your investments and…Oh you’ve never seen the ocean? Oh, the Sea of Galilee is a lake?!??!! Wat”
To me this might indicate that Jesus’ life could be one of voluntary poverty. That he has seen more. (Jesus, not James).
I do know who was commonly thought to be only a desert camel tribe, but records show they were Rome’s big sea trade competitor. That Gaza, with its port, asks for help against King Alexander Janneaus in 93 BCE:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gadara
(Hasmonean — Herodias’ people.)
So yup, I decided this week? to write a book on the potential Nabataean influence on Early Christianity.
My roadmap includes “non-non-cannon”, prolly best not to include. The person that matches me in the Cayce readings was Luke’s sister, as “paired teachers” guiding the Church of Laodicea.
All your trade books are great but I think Apocalyptic prophet is the best and goes to the heart of the matter.
Hello Professor, I was wondering how the Ketef Hinnom scrolls have changed old testament scholarship/dating and the documentary hypothesis, since they are dated to 6th century with the earliest mention of yahweh?
Thank you for your time
-Nas
I don’t know, but I don’t think the documentary hypothesis would be affected by scrolls that use the name Yahweh in the 6th century; the J document has traditionally been dated four centuries before that.
I need to read your books when time allows. In the meantime, I ask some questions here.
I understand that a primary point of your interpretation is that Jesus never identified himself as the cosmic Son of Man referenced from Daniel 7 but was merely a prophet who predicted the coming of the cosmic son of Man.
First, is that correct?
Second, are there opposing critical historical views that say that Jesus did indeed identify himself as the cosmic Son of Man, but he died by crucifixion and was never resurrected from the dead as proclaimed by various apostles? if yes, does your book address these views that you oppose?
1. Yes. 2. None that I know of. But many DO say he called himself the Son of Man.
Thank you. Let me ask this more clearly because the term “cosmic Son of Man” is theological instead of strictly biblical.
Are there critical historical views that say Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man in the context of Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, or Luke 22:69? And I clarify that I am not asking about those exact words but the gist of those passages.
The quotations follow:
Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:64 NRSV)
Jesus said, “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power,’ and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’” (Mark 14:62 NRSV)
But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” (Luke 22:69 NRSV)
I would say it’s both theological and biblical, based on a reading of Daniel 7:13-14. Are there biblical scholars who think Jesus said it and meant that he would be the judge of the earth? Absolutely. Lots of biblical scholars — evangelical Christian scholars fairly consistently, I should think.
“read tons of the books written by scholars for scholars, I don’t think anyone else has much more to say either.”
Probably none has touched this most vital topic in the history of the Bible. Why the disciples of Jesus rejected Paul Acts 9:26. Rejected by both the religion of Jesus and religion of the enemies of Jesus.
Why almost the entire Jewish Population wanted to kill Paul. To the Jews Paul was worse than criminal, like Satan. Unbelievable, there are 15 verses in Acts on Paul’s life. This is extremely important because the West had unknowingly accepted somebody completely unacceptable, banished by the Chosen Race. Paul had gone totally astray. Unforgivable. Highly Sinful.
Research on the above topic. Just do it. It won’t take long or too much time. You will be doing the greatest favor in the history of Western civilization. The answers to this downright rejection by the Chosen Race are in both OT and NT. Available. At your service.
There is nothing in the book of Acts that says the entire Jewish population wanted to kill Paul. Historically, of course, most Jews would never have heard of him. And the other Jewish followers of Jesus didn’t want to kill him!
Your book “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium” has been on my to-read shelf since 2014!!! It may be time to give it a go! I enjoyed “How Jesus Became God”, which is probably when i picked up Apocalyptic Prophet at a Friends of the Durham Library book sale. I also read “Zealot” by Reza Aslan which sounds very similar. Looking forward in digging into your roadmaps in Apocalyptic Prophet. Thanks for the reminder. 🙂
I am behind on my reading – i just saw and signed up for the BBC covering these books. Very exciting!
Ah, my views are very different from Reza’s!
Yes, so i read 🙂 I am reading your book now. 🙂 and I’m looking forward to the BBC meetings coming up. I was wondering if the difference in your fields somehow affects the different views / conclusions. I read that Reza Aslan is a sociologist. I also think i recall that Rodney Stark is a sociologist. Your focus is on the texts, the history of the texts, and how to sort out facts from myth, etc. It just popped in my head that perhaps the differing fields of study may partially account for the different conclusions / views. Could be insignificant also, but maybe fun to talk about. I’m enjoying your book!
Just curious, in your view, why do you think the expectation was that the end was happening right then and there? I mean, the Romans had occupied Palestine for nearly a century at that point. Why expect the end right then? Do you think something triggered that expectation? Maybe the preaching or death of John the Baptist? Or the skirmish in the Temple? Or the shock of Jesus’ death by his initial followers? Or do you think maybe some of that apocalyptic immediacy is simply due to Mark writing at the time of the Jewish revolt?
Good question. I’ll answer the question with a question: why do fundamentalist Christians today think the end is coming right here and now? Many Jews thought it was coming in their own then and there. It’s usually said that it’s because they were so oppressed, but I’ve never thought there was much evidence they were oppressed more then than ever. It goes to the heart of why anyone believes that they believe at one time when they didn’t believe it at another….
Thanks. Sorry to bug you with another question. In your view, how do you understand the prediction in Mark 14:28; 16:7 about Galilee? (Fwiw, I do think the book ends at 16:8 without a resurrection appearance.) But what do you think was meant by that prediction? Do you think it’s implying the parousia (ala Lohmeyer, Weiss, Marxsen)? Or a resurrection appearance? Or Galilee is metaphorical?
If a resurrection appearance, why do you think it goes unfulfilled in any of the endings of Mark? Matthew retains the prediction and shows it fulfilled as a resurrection appearance in his ending. Luke doesn’t retain the prediction, but Luke downplays an imminent apocalyptic end of all things, and also doesn’t have a resurrection appearance in Galilee. Hard to know which if either Luke is avoiding.
This seems significant since the prediction is mentioned twice in Mark, including the last verses (16:7). And the book ends without it being resolved, yet Mark goes out of his way to show Jesus as an accurate predictor of things. Also, the meaning of a story is often clarified/emphasized at the end of the story (eg, Ruth, Jonah, Εsther, Citizen Kane, etc), but this prediction is left hanging and unfulfilled. Thoughts?
My view is that he is predicting a resurrection event (since the Passion predictions speak of a resurrection but not a parousia), but he doesn’t actually ever say that the disciples will participate in it. And in fact the event is unfulfilled. They never do hear that it’s happened. That’s more or less the point, as I read it..
True, the Passion Predictions include resurrection, but in what sense? How would a reader of Mark in 73 CE understand Mark’s eschatology and apocalypticism? Such a reader would be reading Mark without Matthew’s resurrection appearance in Galilee, or Luke’s in/around Jerusalem, or John’s. Such a reader would be reading Mark as the smoke still rose from the ruins of Jerusalem in the distance, which Mark claims Jesus predicted. Would such a reader be expecting Jesus merely to appear on earth to his disciples in a 17th chapter of Mark soon after his death, just to prove he had been raised and to give further instructions? Or would such a reader think Jesus was raised/exalted straight to God’s right hand (Mark 14:62; Rom 1:3-4; Psalm 110:1), where he is now about to return as son of man with clouds and establish God’s kingdom with power, now that Jerusalem (which had condemned Jesus) had been destroyed just as Jesus predicted?
(P.S., thanks for taking time to respond)
The way to understand Mark is precisely not to know about Matthew’s account. That reader would presumably think that Jesus went to Galilee but none of the disciples saw him there.
Of course, we need to separate Mark’s eschatology from that of Jesus. We don’t know for sure what Jesus’ eschatology sounded like. It seems reasonable to presume that Jesus was expecting the inbreaking kingdom immediately, not 10 years later in the Caligula crisis nor 40 years later in the Jewish revolt. Apocalypticists usually predict the end here/now, not decades away. And Mark updates/innovates the message to 40 years later, by writing, the end is here/now in the 70s CE (not ~30CE). It wasn’t going to happen when Jesus died and was raised/exalted, there was going to be a time lapse (Mark 2:20; 13:10; 14:9), but rest assured, now that Jerusalem is destroyed (Mark 13), NOW the kingdom would come. And if so, wouldn’t the unfulfilled predictions (Mark 14:28; 16:7) that they will see Jesus in Galilee seem more like predictions of the parousia, which they should expect soon, still within the the disciples’ lifetime (Mark 9:1; 13:30)? And the reason no one else understood this until Mark now writes is because the disciples (male & female) all failed? So now Mark writes to reveal to everyone, THIS is what Jesus REALLY meant. He meant now in the 70s CE. Thoughts?
I think he imagines that Jesus was raised right after his death. The disciples didn’t see him. And he’s coming back soon in mark’s own day.
When did you start to believe that Jesus was an apocalypticist and that he really did think the kingdom was coming in his generation?
Probably my second or third year in seminary, so around 1980 or so, while still very much a committed Christian.
Bart, what arguments do scholars give who disagree with you that Jesus was apocalyptic? The Jesus Seminar doesn’t believe he was, right? Are their arguments different from others’ who don’t believe he was apocalyptic?
Their view is that since Jesus’ followers after his death were apocalyptic, they put apocalyptic sayings on his lips.
And just realized your advice/roadmap is from 20 years ago. It’s amazing.
Everywhere I find a Bart Ehrman citation it feels like spotting. dry. land. Feels good even when I have a different hypothesis for the conclusion. I trust your scholarship.
So, my interest got caught on the use of *Gaius* with later Herodians. How it’s also used in Rome. (Beyond a Caesar, the Gaius who created a library of ~20k now-missing papyrii).
Obodas of the Nabataeans is from Gaia. And Dushara, despite being of the Shara mountains, too. (Reminds me of how YHWH was originally, maybe a copper-smelting god.)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27926214
Turns out Gaia is just Anatolia, as I earlier suspected. So here’s where I found a good Bart. You debunk, I’m not so sure.
“Abgar, ruler of Edessa, to Jesus the good physician who has appeared in the country of Jerusalem, greeting”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abgar_V
I didn’t know about this until minutes ago:
“The Abgarid dynasty or Abgar dynasty was a dynasty of Nabataean Arab origin…J.B. Segal notes that the names ending in “-u” are “undoubtedly Nabatean…The Abgarid dynasts spoke “a form of Aramaic.”
What *is* consistent with Abgarids & Christianity is their kind distribution of resources. What’s the scholarly take on why apostles chose Anatolia & Puteoli?
continued/
If you look at Obodas of Gaia on coins, he’s haole. Beautiful representations of ethnically Semetic people exist before/during aniconism and dude’s friar tucking it:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obodas_I
Also, what’s up with art making Jesus emaciated? SMH
Matthew 11:19
“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard…”
Besides that he was crucibled naked. Inerrancy aside, signal degradation is expected. Its the passion to reverse biases of cultures, time, and apostles that is cool. Yeah I’m dunking on Paul 😇
Cheesus. I tried reading Corinthians 2 a couple nights ago and I couldn’t get thru it. But this also means everyone is likely to steward a piece of Jesus’ teachings *right.*
Paul is like: if Trump turned freegan and tried to get into a PETA party. Sus.
Even as he’s preaching the ecstacy of dumpster diving behind Whole Foods. Except it Petra and Aretas about to hand him his butt in a handbasket.
Eventually we know Paul is sincere. But he says such bait (against James. Nabataeans, too, maybe) that we know he’s still our favorite ship poaster.
Today I’m checking out this to the East:
“I am Nabonidus, the only son, who has nobody. In my mind there was no thought of kingship.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabonidus?utm_source=pocket_mylist
Bart, If I counted correctly above, my fellow blog members are willing to donate $2500 if you send them a copy of your book :-):
In The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction, renowned biblical scholar and New York Times Bestselling author Bart D. Ehrman presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds, this is an ideal textbook for one-semester courses on the Bible. Ehrman covers every book in the canon, including the Apocrypha, explaining the historical and literary problems posed by the biblical texts and showing students how to analyze scholarly evidence and conclusions.
I think it involved writing another book. A book you couldn’t pay me enough to write!! (a commentary)
OK Bart – so you arent going to write it 🙁
But, is there such a book ? One written maybe by an atheist or a scholar which takes each Jesus story/parable and analyses its context and how different authors changed it ? And considers if it’s likely Jesus did or said what the verse suggests ? And postulates on what Jesus may have meant ?
I remember I have a book from the Jesus Seminar called The Five Gospels but it doesnt really analyse each story.
There are lots of books about Jesus’ parables by fine scholars who are Christians who don’t important their theological views into them and by non-Christians. I don’t know of one that goes parable by parable, but they may exist. You might start with Amy-Jill Levine’s vfairly recent book on parables.
The gospel of John probably used some source material, why do you think that it is just oral tradition and that it doesn’t go back to the beloved disciple?
I definitely think there was source material. The author does mention writings by the Beloved Disciple; I don’t know who that was (either does anyone else, though lots and lots of peole think they do), but the author of John certainly claims that at least one of his stories (teh spear in Jesus’ side on the cross) goes back to the Beloved Disciple. Whether it actually did or not, I’m not sure how we would be able to tell. It is striking that it involves a miraculous event and he insists it happened, because of his source, and often, in the ancient world, that means the author may be “protesting too much”!
Are there reasons for thinking that at least, the author of John would not have had access to any information coming from an eye-witness (like the beloved disciple)? Maybe a reason from the writing style/philosophy or something?
Well, he says he got information from him (19:35), but it’s not clear that he means directly from him. The major arguments would be general plausibility, especially since teh one thing he appeals to the disciple for is a miraculous event that seems implausible on all sorts of grounds. Not only is it physiolotically implausible (i.e., a miracle) but how is it that a disciple of Jesus was standing next to the cross? Seems unlikely the disciples were hanging around waiting to go up on a cross next, and according to the earlier reports they had fled the scene.
“And the other Jewish followers of Jesus didn’t want to kill him!”
Acts 9:26 “And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.” Most important verse means Jesus’s disciples as well as their followers also rejected Paul. Jewish religious, divine LAW forced ALL to kill Paul.
Kindly provide reasons/explanation on all 15 verses that the Jewish population wanted to kill Paul. Acts 9:24 “..they watched the gates day and night to kill him” Acts 23:12 “..they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.”
Compulsory for the entire Jewish population including the genuine followers of Jesus MUST make effort to kill Paul. Jewish LAW in OT, commanded by God Almighty of the Entire Universe. Surely the entire Chosen Race rejected. Unfortunately, the gentiles, unaware of Paul’s mistakes, took him where he reintroduced a new pagan religion with little modification. Even today, the entire Christian population is unaware of Paul’s true background.
100 % sure JESUS FOLLOWERS WERE DEFINITELY NEVER CHRISTIANS.
Paul was the founder of Christianity. Historical evidence clearly confirm Jesus had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. Zero.
Well, if he hadn’t been crucified I don’t see how we would have Christianity; and the sacred Scripture of the Christians is almost entirely about him. So I don’t think we can say he had nothing to do with it….
“I don’t think we can say he had nothing to do with it.”
Jesus’s religion similar with all prophets including Abraham, Moses. Jesus mission; guided those gone astray to straight path. “I am not sent but to the Lost sheep of Israel.” His mission was never to gentiles. NOTHING FOR GENTILES.
Lost sheep rejected Jesus, plotted to kill. God Most Merciful, accepted prayer, ascension. NO CRUCIFIXION. Today those reject Jesus, adopt Judaism and OT.
Years later, Saul persecuted followers of Jesus. Road to Damascus, Paul heard voice. Claimed
voice of Jesus; felt Jesus had resurrected. Paul never met Jesus. How can he recognize voice? Absurd. None confirmed story to be true. Paul invented resurrection.
Paul, first man to write several NT books, introduced HIS so-called gospel 2Timothy2:8. JESUS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Paul’s doctrines blasphemy, unacceptable by entire Chosen Race who must all kill him. Divine LAW. Paul escaped to the gentiles, who unaware, accepted his theology and started new Christian religion to the West with NT.
God Most Merciful sent His Last prophet…..,and HIS Final Revelation….to SAVE MANKIND by correcting all past human errors from the time of Adam. Religion of all the prophets….LAM, Oldest Religion, Peace/Obedience/Sincerity/Surrender/Submission of our will to God.
I think you would have a very difficult time showing on historical grounds that Paul “invented” the resurrection (and thus was the first to believe in it). It seems you’re doing history from the perspective of animosity toward the topic, rather than being interested in seeing what really happened. That’s just as problematic as supporting historical claims because they confirm what you already thing.
Does anyone know the accuracy of the book – The Archko Volume? Fascinating read.
I’m afraid it’s bogus. But interesting!
I have loved and used this book for years now…always considered it most timely for the New Millennium–and a wonderful re-presenting of Schweitzer and the core issue–perhaps put most succinctly in the classic phrase: this generation will not pass until ALL these things have come about…” If one starts with Paul–especially 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians–is it not crystal clear the Jesus followers listening to Paul in the 50s CE were absolutely building everything around the imminent Parousia. Not the first time or the last…from Qumran to Waco–as I put it once in an article on prophecy belief through the ages. Glad you have called attention to this fine book again.
“I think you would have very difficult time showing on historical grounds that Paul “invented” resurrection”
Thank you for your reply.
I have substantiated sensible evidence from Christian sources acceptable by scholars. Prior to Paul’s appearance, nobody believed in resurrection. Its true no other historical documentation earlier than Paul’s on resurrection or Christianity. Undoubtedly, certainly Paul was the pioneer.
Its true Paul was FIRST Christian composer. Its also true Paul was the first to propagate resurrection aggressively in several of his books. Its true Paul was the major player or the only person who bulldozed his creations. Its true Paul had no competitor who performed better.
Paul outclassed every body including Jesus and his disciples to champion Christianity. Its true historical statistics can confirm Jesus and his disciples did absolutely nothing or zero contribution for Christianity.
I am most certain you will have great difficulty in accepting this historical, powerful, accuracy. It causes substantial havoc on many matters.
Scholars who had been trained with antiquated concepts for decades will have difficulty to change to new ones even if it is highly truthful. Its natural phenomena that is understandable and tolerable.
Please suggest a competitor better than Paul who sold Christian doctrines?
I’m not sure you heard my point. Paul was persecuting the Christians before he became one. He himself says that he learned about Jesus’ death and resurrectoin from others. I don’t know what proof you are adducing that Paul invented the idea of a resurrection, but of the many thousands of scholars I know and have read (Christian, Jewish, atheist, whatever), I don’t know of any who have that view.
I don’t think one needs to have Paul invent the resurrection in order to argue that he invented Christianity. Most Jews who thought or hoped Jesus was the messiah would have dropped their belief when he was crucified. But some, though in shock over it, might have come to think that he was resurrected and would now or soon do what a Jewish messiah was expected by many Jews to do: be victorious over their enemies, re-establish the nation of Israel, and help God usher in the Kingdom of God. That would have still been a Jewish movement, not marked by Christianity.
But what Paul could have added and thus produced Christianity was the belief that Jesus’ death was a sacrifice and salvific. That takes the step into Christianity.
The Church of God that Paul persecuted could have been comprised of the former group–Jews who believed Jesus had been raised and who would carry out his messianic mission. Such beliefs would have been enough to make some Jews persecute them. Paul never said exactly what the church believed. As for saying he received the Gospel from others, we;;, you know, he also said the opposite.
Appreciate your reply. “not sure you heard my point.”
Christians rarely segregate information:- saying of Jesus from writers, church, Paul, scholars and others(historians,etc.). BIG PROBLEM.
“Paul persecuting Christians before he became one.” teaching of the church for centuries without justifiable evidence in NT. Followers of Jesus never admitted “I am a Christian.” Paul never confessed “I converted to Christianity”
WORSE. Word ‘Christian’ is NOT even in first four books of NT. IMPOSSIBLE Paul persecuted Christians. ‘Christianity’ NOT IN FIRST FOUR BOOKS is a deadly knock-out blow on church theology. Paul never converted but started Christianity, new, different faith, which did not exist before Damascus Road.
You mentioned “God raised Jesus from the dead.” teaching of the church. No verse “I, God raised Jesus from the dead.”
Christians believe as word of God Matthew16:21“go to Jerusalem, suffer, be killed, third day be raised.” WHEN IT WAS UNKNOWN COMPOSER.
Paul wrote most books. It must be his words, ideas, and inventions. “Paul learn from others” without specifying ‘others’. Same illogical low standard as “Paul persecuted Christians” when those Paul persecuted never admitted they were Christians. UNJUSTIFIABLE STATEMENT.
Lengthy subject. Trust you can accept truths. Change willingly for the better. Can answer doubts. Big thank you for your reply.
OK. Paul persecuted the followers of Jesus who were later called Christians.
“OK. Paul persecuted the followers of Jesus who were later called Christians.”
Thank you for your reply.
You seemed to be very FIRM in your belief.
You REPEATED it. Demonstrated your expertise on this matter with great confidence, solid, and showed your UNYIELDING STAND.
“I’m not sure you heard my point. Paul was persecuting the Christians before he became one.”
Kindly let us know the person names who called Jesus and his followers ‘Christians’?
A simple and reasonable question which any attorney will ask in any Court in any part of the world.
Can you please estimate the number of people who called the followers of Jesus ‘Christians’ ?
In the range of 1,000 to 3,000 or less than 1,000 people?
Did the followers of Jesus acknowledge them whenever they called the followers of Jesus ‘Christians’?
Did the followers of Jesus acknowledge Paul as apostle?
Please provide three verses whereby followers of Jesus accepted all Paul’s doctrines? This information is crucial to confirm that they were Christians.
Kindly put forth verses whereby disciples of Jesus agreed that pork was now permissible, circumcision redundant?
Trust, as recognized author of many books of Best Seller status, please provide logical answers with evidence to substantiate your repeated stand.
BIG THANK YOU
The term “Christian” is very much a disputed term. I define it in a broad sense: it refers to anyone who believes that Christ is the way of salvation for them. By that definition, the earliest followers of Jesus were Christian. I don’t think that it should be objected that they “don’t call themselves that.” I know many Christians who insist they don’t have a “religion,” but by anyone else’s standards they do. Paul’s doctrins were not entirely accepted by lots of people who were Christian. And by lots of people today who aren’t. Then again, I’d say that is true of every Christian teacher.
“OK. Paul persecuted the followers of Jesus who were later called Christians.”
First time ‘Christians’ appear in NT is not in the first four books but in Acts 11:26 “disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”
Antioch is in Turkey. Distance between Antioch and Jerusalem is 12,000 KM, to Galilee is 15,000 KM. Will take weeks/months to reach Antioch. No valid reason for disciples to be in Antioch because there were no lost sheep there.
Jesus had commanded NOT to follow the way of the Gentiles and NOT to go nearby Gentile cities like Samaritans.
Matthew10:5 “go NOT into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye NOT.”
Impossible followers of Jesus were in Turkey, city of Gentiles, distant, faraway city. Context of verse Acts11:26 refers to followers of Paul who were all Gentiles.
How many times word ‘Christian’ appear in NT? Less than four times, all three had nothing to do with disciples of Jesus.
This research surely proves religion of Jesus and disciples were never Christianity.
Nobody can prove otherwise with reliable historical evidence.
As recognized leader with many trusted followers, it become a responsibility to share this truth. Punishments for hiding truth is severe, worse than unknowing followers.
That’s right. No one in the Gospels would be called Christians, since by my definition, the term applies to those who, after Jesus’ death (not during his life) understood that he provided the way of salvation. I don’t think getting hung up on the word “Christian” is the most important issue. The issue is less which word we use than what we mean by it.