Loading...More interesting questions for readers — including issues connected with miracles…
QUESTION:
I have a question about the epistemological limits of historical inquiry—one that I have long wondered about without finding a clear answer. My understanding is that historians work with surviving evidence and attempt to reconstruct what most probably happened. Because historical method generally operates with methodological naturalism, events such as miracles—for example, the resurrection—appear either extremely improbable or methodologically excluded within historical analysis, at least methodologically speaking.
If this is the case,
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!
Reading Eusebius’ *Church History* 5.1 made me reflect on exaggerated numbers in ancient writings. Such exaggeration is not unique to the Old Testament; it is common throughout ancient historical and religious literature. Numbers of soldiers, populations, royal domains, and casualties often appear enormous, even unrealistic, to modern readers.
The same applies to lifespans. Genesis describes extraordinarily long-lived figures, while Japanese mythology also speaks of imperial ancestors living for hundreds of years. Buddhism offers an even more striking example: Maitreya, a future savior figure, is expected to appear after 5.67 billion years. Compared with that, Christians who have waited two thousand years for Christ’s Second Coming almost seem impatient.
Yet these numbers do not appear entirely random. Methuselah’s age, for example, seems arranged so that he dies just before the flood. This suggests that ancient writers may have used numbers not merely as statistics, but as symbolic tools.
Such numbers could express greatness, authority, judgment, or cosmic significance. These texts may therefore be read not simply as modern historical records, but as mythic histories combining memory, theology, symbolism, communal identity, and the worldview of ancient people.
Interesting answer to the miracle question. I thought you were heading in another direction: because Paul says god raised Jesus from the dead, this claim cannot be proven historically because Paul, as our only primary source, did not witness the event, he has clear biases, and he is coming to this conclusion after the fact. At best, we have have to rule out if Jesus was a vampire or zombie. Or, of course, these are simply stories.
Paul could not prove to others that God raised Jesus from the dead. But, as Saul of Tarsus, Paul had clear biases AGAINST the idea. Paul did not witness the event (the Resurrection), but he claimed to have experienced several supernatural events that included Jesus. These supernatural events changed the course of his life and dictated the direction of his life. As you pointed out, ” . . . and he is coming to his conclusion after the fact.” I think that it is important to mention that none of the Twelve Apostles nor Mary Magdelene claimed to have witnessed the event (the Resurrection). Interestingly, a stone slab with Greek inscriptions was found in the village of Nazareth declaring that it was a capital offense according to Roman law to remove a corpse from a tomb. Only in Nazareth. Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome in 49 CE because they were disrupting social order because of a “Chrestus”. (Suetonius). We can rule out that Jesus was a vampire or a zombie. Paul did not care about the inerrant Bible. Paul might have suspected that pseudepigrahal forgeries that claimed his authorship would be circulating after his death. He was correct.
Acts, where the idea of Saul of Tarsus comes from, is not a primary source nor did Paul ever call himself Saul in his authentic letters. Whatever Acts says about Saul comes from the imagination of its author; it does not come from Paul’s writings.
Yes, Paul claims to have an on-going relationship with the “ resurrected” Christ. Now, as a modern person, reading the Bible through the historical- critical method, do you believe him?
Agreed, Paul, our only primary source, does not say the Twelve witnessed the resurrection. Paul writes Jesus “ appeared” to them. Mary Magdelane is not mentioned by Paul in his letters. Mary Magdelane is first mentioned by the author of Mark, written roughly 20 years after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.
Yes, it was a capital offense to remove a body; therefore no one ever removed bodies in the Roman Empire, right? You are also assuming the tomb stories are true. Most likely, Jesus was buried in an unmarked mass grave.
Claudius expelling the Jews is irrelevant to our topic.
Why can we rule out whether Jesus was a zombie or vampire? Drink my blood? Eat my body? Sounds pretty vampiric to me.
Claudius expelling the Jews is relevant. The Jews were expelled from the city of Rome by the order of Claudius in the year of 49 CE because of the instigation of a “Chrestos”. ACTS 18:2 ” . . . because Claudius had ordered all Jews to depart from Rome . . .” Also, you wrote, “nor did Paul ever call himself Saul in his authentic letters”. You accept the historical existence of Paul. Paul never referred to himself in the third person; do you? GALATIANS 1:13-14, GALATIANS 1:23, and ACTS 26: 9-11 collaborates the narrative in ACTS of Saul of Tarsus. If the sacrificial Passover Lamb is predicting the crucifixion, then the Last Supper makes sense. Your comment reminds me of young male children. Very young. Only in Judea was it a capital offense to remove a corpse from a tomb and only after the Imperial edict. Otherwise, it was a civil offense and a fine in Imperial Rome. A hundred thousand Passover visitors investigated the rumors of the EMPTY TOMB. Some had traveled from Rome and were expelled by Claudius years later. “Something” happened to Paul. It convinced him and changed his life. The instigation of “Chrestos”.
If we accept Jesus was crucified in 30 CE, discussion about the Jewish expulsion from Rome in 49 CE is irrelevant. We are not discussing if Jewish or Jesus-follower communities may have experienced tensions. We are discussing if history can point to a resurrection.
Paul identifies himself.
“Paul…,”
Romans 1:1
“Paul…,”
1 Corinthians 1:1
“Paul…”
Galatians 1:1
Paul identifies himself as Saul.
“Saul” illustrates Paul’s “ conversion” away from his previous life.
I think the author of Acts used the Paul’s letters to write his narratives. He fills in the gaps. Paul never says how he converted. The author of Acts invents the “ road to Damascus” story. Paul says he persecuted the church, but not how. Acts tells us he ordered their murder.
The Last supper was first written about by Paul. The gospel writers, writing much later, historicized Paul’s vision of the Last supper. Luke smashes together Mark’s and Paul’s version to create a new Lukan narrative. Paul never mentions Judas nor does he connect the last supper to Passover.
The truth is Paul had a vision of a spiritually-embodied Jesus and came to the conclusion that he resurrected. Decades later, gospel writers created stories.
Thank you for clarifying your own views on the resurrection. I think though I should read some of your books to get a better picture of your views. Actually when I do read snippets of what you say about it very carefully, I do notice myself that you’re not outright trying to disprove that the resurrection took place. But i have to read it carefully because otherwise I can easily misunderstand you as trying to debunk it. However, in a video of a debate with a Christian apologist, you argued that just as violating the laws of mathematics is impossible, so is resurrection. To clarify, were you in that debate trying to argue that the resurrection didn’t happen, or that it can’t be proven to have happened through the discipline of history?
Thank you for clarifying your own views on the resurrection. I think though I should read some of your books to get a better picture of your views. Actually when I do read snippets of what you say about it very carefully, I do notice myself that you’re not outright trying to disprove that the resurrection took place. But i have to read it carefully because otherwise I can easily misunderstand you as trying to debunk it. However, in a video of a debate with a Christian apologist, you argued that just as violating the laws of mathematics is impossible, so is resurrection. To clarify, were you in that debate trying to argue that the resurrection didn’t happen, or that it can’t be proven to have happened through the discipline of history?
Dr. Ehrman, not that you would care, but did you know that Dr. James White still makes videos about you and castigates your scholrship to a point where it is just downright ridiculous, lol!
Have a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD7kMRoLJkU
I have to admit, I don’t keep up with him. Does make you wonder why he’s so bothered about it….
Yeah, I watched the video and White definitely is on a personal mission to try to discredit most of Bart’s (and others that he deems as ‘liberal’ works) and especially attacks the ‘popular’ works. At least White makes an effort to read Bart’s books before countering but most of White’s counterattacks hinge on one accepting a popular theory that the OT often points to Jesus and that most all of the NT assumed authorship should be accepted. For White, it seems it is not smart to question his theories but it is essential to question Bart’s. Just more mydoxy vs yourdoxy without much useful detail.
Hello! I enjoyed your recent “Love Thy Stranger” book. I have a nitpick if there’s ever another printing or a paperback edition… disclaimer I read the Google Play book version. Chapter 8, Footnote 19 reads “The three of them formed a kind of triumvirate, known collectively as the Cappadocian Church Fathers, most famous for their roles in establishing the traditional doctrine of the Trinity.” The problem is that this is attached to a sentence on “The famine that hit Asia Minor that year was catastrophic almost beyond imagination.” I think this clearly was meant to be attached to a sentence on Basil somewhere in the preceding paragraph or the next paragraph, not on the famine. Also, even if it had been, I don’t think the two Gregorys that were the other members are mentioned or named anywhere? So the footnote is a bit jarring, I had to look it up on Wikipedia to see where this “three of them” was coming from, the Gregorys are never named nor introduced.
Still, nice work!
It’s probably a scribal corruptoin of the text…
Glad you liked the book!
I appreciate the clarity of your distinction between the past and history. The past is everything that happened; history is our reconstruction of what probably happened. That seems exactly right, though I hesitate over the word “necessarily.” Still, I take the larger distinction.
It raises the question that keeps returning to me. Historical criticism can be devastating against certain forms of Christian certainty, especially those built on inerrancy, harmonization, or the idea that history can prove the resurrection straightforwardly. I understand that.
But I wonder whether we move too quickly from “that kind of certainty cannot stand” to “Christian faith itself cannot stand.” Those are not the same claim.
If the old foundation was fundamentalist certainty, then yes, historical criticism can break it. Can Christian faith stand instead with historical anchors held as anchors, not as proof: Jesus, the cross, the early witnesses, and the emergence of resurrection proclamation within Israel’s story?
That would not make faith invulnerable. It would still have to face hard questions, including the problem of suffering. But it would also not be nothing, or merely a feeling.
So, are the arguments that rightly defeat fundamentalist certainty equally decisive against Christian faith as such?
Nope, I don’t think so. I”ve never attacked Christianity as such, even though I myself am no longer a Christian believer.
To call an event a miracle is to attribute its cause to God. If the event is improbable but not impossible, there is never any need to assert its being a miracle, for it could always have some non-divine cause; calling it such is a hypothesis of belief. But if an impossible event were to occur—the sky turns green for seven minutes and when it switches back to blue every person alive on earth who had lost a limb has had it restored and in perfect working order—even then it is unnecessary to invoke a divine cause. The event could be the direct intervention of God, but it could also be a gift from an advanced alien civilization that has for whatever reason taken an interest in the welfare of earthlings. So even then calling an event a miracle remains a hypothesis of belief rather than a proof of it. Historians, certainly, have no tools available to them to determine whether any event was divinely caused. Asserting a miracle occurred can only be done from a position of faith and proves nothing.
1. There is another question that needs to be asked when evaluating miracle claims. How can we distinguish between supernatural occurrences and natural occurrences we just don’t understand yet? I note the countless examples of events that that were once thought to be supernatural that were later found out to be natural and the complete absence of events that were thought to be natural that turned out to be supernatural.
2. At the time the vision of the “500” of the resurrected Jesus would’ve occurred in the post-Easter timeline of events, would there have even been 500 Jesus followers yet in the entire world? I have no Greek but could copiers/scribes have mistaken ’50’ for ‘500’ in the koine?
Presumably Paul means thta 500 became followers of Jesus at the time. There’s no evidence for that elswhere. And its possible that a scribe misstook 50 for 500, but there’s no evidence for it (all our manuscripts read 500).
It seems a bit odd that the work of Hume is (almost?) never mentioned here. He doesn’t argue that there are no miracles; nor that they can’t ever be known to happen – just that no amount of testimony can establish them. Hume’s math (probability judgments) needed updating , but methinks the argument is sound. On the other hand I suggest that miracle stories are *true* if read as intended – that is, symbolically. Just think of the Gadarene/Gerasene(?) demonaic. He violates just about every canon of Jewish purity: he is the epitome of UNcivilized (Jewish) existence. He’s possessed by a posse of demons collectively claiming the name Legion. They are emailed over to the pigs, which drown in the sea. Symbolism, eh? I suggest this sort of analysis works for every single one of the miracle stories, though I haven’t myself figured out some of them.
I suppose I didn’t mention Hume because my post wasn’t trying to provide the history of the discussion of miracles since the Enlightenment. 🙂
But also: I get very tired of some scholars (not you: just the opposite) attacking the views I have (OK, attacking me) by saying either (or both) that:
1. You just have an anti-supernatural bias, and
2. Oh, that’s just Hume….
For one thing, it’s not a supernatural bias, since its the view I had when I believed in miracles (I just know you couldn’t historically demonstrate them). And for the other, I don’t cite Hume as an “authority” because for me the authority is the argument, not who first most compellingly set it out.
That kind of philosophical snobbishness — when someone attacks something I say by responding: “Oh, you’re just depending on [philosopher] X, Y, or Z, and NO ONE agrees with HIM any more” — happens a lot among certain evangelical apologists. As an example, I won’t name names, but his initials are William Craig.
Already in graduate school when I was talking to a very senior (evangelical) scholar of the New Testament and explaining my views of the diversity of early Christian beliefs and conflicts, he cut me off, rather forcefully, by saying, “Oh, that’s just HEGELIAN.” As if Hegel was the kiss of death. Or, more important for me then and now, as if the fact that I hold a view that can trace it’s genealogical lineage back to one philosopher or another, it can therefore be discarded.
For me it’s always been about the historical EVIDENCE, not about who said what when.
But I do appreciate your point. Hume was a brilliant guy and I should probably discuss him on the blog.
I do wonder what criteria, though, you use to argue that the miracle sroties were intended to be symbolic. I see no evidence of that in the New Testament, early Christian discussions of the accounts, or analagous discussions in Jewish, Greek, or Roman circles.
I choose to look at the term “miracle” differently. Sometimes an event may occur only once in a million or a billion yet it occurs. If someone calls that a miracle, so be it. In my opinion this is more than acceptable if it leads to a more altruistic approach to life.
Just remarks all. No supernatural bias in me either – just want to understand what the texts mean to say. Common experience plus all the problems with thinking an immaterial god can cause any material event, plus Hume’s revised argument, plus a principle of charity, tell me these stories were not written by fools, and only a fool would buy a story about a guy literally walking on water, etc. So either those authors were fools after all (no indep. evidence) or the stories were not meant literally but figuratively. But how to understand the figures? Here I’m influenced by the work of anthropologists: Durkheim on what those texts “really” refer to and Levi-Straus’s structural myth analysis. No space to elaborate. Very crudely: there are themes that recur in various combinations; the themes are the meaning elements from which a myth and its variants are constructed. One identifies these by systematic recurrences in varying contexts (just as we learn words). Once you identify a mytheme you have a semantically basic element in that myth tradition. (It’s an art to identify such themes. (Example: Jesus walking on the water and calming the storm. Mytheme: deity controlling/parting the chaos waters, rescuing kings,
etc. from the tehom/storm/chaos waters and defeating the monsters of the waters (and desert) – both inimical to human civilization. Occurrences, Gen. 1, Noah’s ark, parting of the Red Sea, parting of the Jordan, Davidic and other psalms, God walking on the water (Job), etc., Jesus walking on the water/calming the storm. Etc. Another example: Jesus Barabbas and Yom Kippur. Jesus’ Passion (esp. in Mt.) being suffused with strategic appearances of sympathetic women as markers of “rites of passage” marking off the realm of the earthly powers of darkness, from their “metaphysical” mirror images, etc. I consider the Bible to be permeated with such structures. Evidence for such a theory: by their fruits shall you know them.
Personal experience: as a junior physics major in college I attended a packed lecture by Hartshorn on his ontological argument. After questions from faculty and phil majors, I offered an objection. Hartshorn startled, then said “That’s a Positivist objection,” turned to another question. What’s a “positivist” objection I wondered. Well whatever that means, it’s a good objection. Hartshorne refused to acknowledge my newly raised hand. I did call him to account years later at an Amer. Phil. Assoc. convention.
The accusations against early Christians reminds me of slander against immigrant communities in the U.S.: “They’re eating the dogs.”
he will be astonished, and he
will rule over the All.’
These secret the spoke
Didymos wrote
And whoever interpretation sayings
Experience
Let seeks
Until when
he become he
He astonished
Will thee
Thee will
Astonished he
He become he
When until seeks
Let experience sayings
Interpretation whoever and
Wrote Didymos
Spoke the secret
These
Theological Note: This commentary emphasizes the circularity of interpretation and
astonishment. The repetition of ‘he become he’ reflects the recursive rhythm of Gnostic
seeking, which unsettles linear interpretation. It echoes the centrality of experiential discovery
noted by Pagels (1979) and Meyer (2007).
His name was Judas? Does Thomas and Didymos mean twin? So his name was Judas?
Yup, his name is Judas, or Jude. And in these texts he is assumed to be the twin specifically of Jesus. (See the Acts of Thomas where he is actually his identical, though mortal, twin)
So it’s Judas Thomas called Didymos?
Or Judas, twin twin, if I am understanding it correctly?
His name is Jude/Judas. To identify him as a twin, they call him Didymus Judas Thomas.
Ok. Thank you for what Bart. For years, you dedicated your life. If any one will pray for you to be rewarded, it would be me. I pray your questions get answered.❤️🌎🕊️
Suppose you binge-watch the YouTube channels that feature NDEs (near death experiences). Then, “something” happened to you that closely resembled the NDE testimonies that your mind is saturated with. Let’s explore the options. #1) All NDEs are imagined; #2) Some NDEs are sincere delusions, others are clever fakes; #3) Some NDEs are sincere delusions, others are clever fakes, but a third set is genuine.
Most of the alleged miracles in the Gospels were fabricated by the “Q” Community of former Essenes and former Therapeutae in order to BUDDHA-fy Jesus of Nazareth. They did not witness the Resurrection. They walked inside the EMPTY TOMB. They experienced the midday darkness three days earlier. Some watched the Crucifixion. According to Josephus, the Essene community had “prophets” who interpreted current events. The “Q” Community “backfilled” the historical narrative. What events created the “Q” Community? The midday darkness and the EMPTY TOMB.
We are looking in the wrong places for the wrong evidence and we are using the wrong methods. No one finds the Golden Needle in the haystack while operating a forklift blindfolded. Fortunately, believers and unbelievers are judged equally by the Divine Universal Standard. Christ is faithful. GOD is faithful.