Loading...Interested in coming to hear me give a talk/book reading? It’s next Tuesday, August 23, in Waynesville NC. All proceeds go to the local Indie, Blue Ridge Books, a terrific bookstore that managed to survive the crisis. I hope you can come!
I’m Doing a Speaking Event in Waynesville Next Week!
August 19, 2022
Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
6 Comments
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Please check date in your request. It is the 23 not 26.
Done! Changed!
Dr. Ehrman,
Is this analysis correct?
“Resurrection is specifically a Pharisaic term, it meant nothing to the Greeks, it meant nothing to the Romans, and not even to the Sadducees. The context is that, at the very end time there will be a general resurrection, a universal resurrection. When Paul says, the resurrection has begun with Jesus, Paul is still very much a Pharisee. He’s saying that means that judgement has begun as a reality in this world. Resurrection has a technical meaning in the first century. It doesn’t mean whatever one wants it to mean.”
Well, it *meant* something to these others, but what it meant was thought to be nonsense. But no, it was not specifically a Pharisee term. It was subscribed to by the Essenes, John the Baptism, Jesus, and so far as we can tell lots and lots of non-Pharisaid Jews (who numbered only in the hundreds at the time.)
Dr. Ehrman,
What if the first comment in the first part is taken away, and is revised to the following, is this correct?
The context of resurrection in the first century is that, at the very end time there will be a general resurrection, a universal resurrection. When Paul says, the resurrection has begun with Jesus, Paul is still very much a Pharisee. He’s saying that means that judgement has begun as a reality in this world. Resurrection has a technical meaning in the first century. It doesn’t mean whatever one wants it to mean.
I agree with that second paragraph, yes.