Loading...Here are three interesting questions I’ve recently received, and my attempts to answer….
QUESTION:
I’ve been wondering about the passage in Romans where Paul expresses his fear about returning to Jerusalem on account of opposition because he wanted to take the money that he raised there before leaving for Spain. I used to couple this account with Paul’s final leg of his third mission out of Corinth back to Jerusalem, and there he indeed faces opposition Acts chapter 20 and then finds himself in Rome, in prison Acts 28? The passages seem to fit well together, but how? History, hearsay, looking at the letter itself expanding the details? What do you think?
RESPONSE:
I think the big problem is the whether we can accept the book of Acts as providing a reliable account of Paul’s arrest and trials. I don’t think we can. So reconciling it or conflating it with Paul’s own account(s) just doesn’t work.
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!
In re the “3 days,” I think James Tabor makes a good argument that Jesus was crucified on Thursday, not Friday. And I think the 4th Gospel may be right in pushing the crucifixion a day earlier, to the Preparation Day. After all, in Mark the Jewish leaders say ““Not during the festival, otherwise there might be a riot of the people,” but then it has them trying and crucifying him on Passover, which seems to be contrary to their stated intentions. If only the Jerusalem Times had provided better coverage!
Does he explain why every source indicates it was the day before Sabbath?
Per Tabor: “Everyone assumed the reference to “the Sabbath” had to be Saturday—so the crucifixion must have been on a Friday. However, as Jews know, the day of Passover itself is also a “Sabbath” or rest day—no matter what weekday it falls on. In the year 30 AD Friday, the 15th of the Jewish month Nisan was also a Sabbath—so two Sabbaths occurred back to back—Friday and Saturday. Matthew seems to know this as he says that the women who visited Jesus’ tomb came early Sunday morning “after the Sabbaths” (Matthew 28:1).”
OK. Never heard that before. Does he give evidence that Passover was referred to as Sabbath in ancient texts? It can be called a “Great Sabbath,” if it falls on a Saturday; but that’s not hte same?
Since there was a high Sabbath that week for Passover I think Jesus may have actually died on Thursday.
Do we really know for sure that the tomb wasn’t empty before it was found by Mary and the women at sunrise on Sunday? No one actually saw him arise, so I’m not sure we can actually pinpoint the time of the resurrection.
I”m not sure what you mean by high Sabbath? Sabbath was always Saturday, I believe.
But no, I”m not at all sure the tomb was empty. I’m not sure there was a tomb. Romans normally left crucified victims on their crosses for days after they died, as part of the punishment.
There was the weekly Sabbath and then the Sabbath associated with the additional Jewish religious rites. In this case, Passover. I’ve heard these extra Sabbath times referred to as “high Sabbath.” So the Sabbath associated with Passover would not have replaced the weekly Sabbath, it would have started earlier in the week. So if the weekly Sabbath started at sundown Friday, then I think the High Sabbath would have started on Thursday at sundown. I could be wrong. I’m no expert, but this is definitely something I have read on more than one occasion by different sources.
I’m still not clear. Are you saying that anicent sources speak of some festivals as being High Sabbaths? Do you know what sources indicate this?
No, sir. Not ancient sources. I mainly learn about those from you. =) Here are a couple of links that can probably clarify:
https://www.gotquestions.org/high-Sabbath.html
https://reasonsforhopejesus.com/crucified/
According to Strack and Billerbeck’s commentaries on the Talmud, Midrash, Rabbinic literature, and the New Testament, the weekly sabbath is a “high day” or “high sabbath” if it falls on Nisan 15 or Nisan 16. So, the phrase “high sabbath” can be properly applied to a Thursday or Friday crucifixion of Jesus. According to the book of Exodus, any day on which no work is permitted is a sabbath and that obviously includes the weekly sabbath. Passover week is Nisan 15 to Nisan 21 inclusive (but work is permitted on the preparation day Nisan 14). No work is permitted on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread (Nisan 15) and no work is permitted on the last day of the feast of unleavened bread (Nisan 21). So those two days are sabbaths. If the weekly sabbath falls on Nisan 15 or Nisan 21 then that Passover week has two sabbaths. If the weekly sabbath doesn’t fall on either of those days, say it falls on Nisan 17, then that Passover week has three sabbaths.
I should add that if the weekly sabbath falls on Nisan 14 then no work is permitted on Nisan 14. In that case, the preparations for the Passover must be done on Nisan 13.
Mark’s gospel has Jesus being crucified on Nisan 15 and that cannot be historically correct. Nisan 15, like the weekly sabbath, is a mandatory no work is permitted day just like the weekly sabbath. Nisan 15 is a mandatory sacred day of rest, and the only work allowed is eating the Passover meal. The Sanhedrin would not have had a meeting interrogating Jesus on Nisan 15 any more than they would have a meeting and be interrogating him on the weekly sabbath. The crucifixion of Jesus would not have happened on Nisan 15 any more than it would have happen on the weekly sabbath. Joseph of Arimathea would not have done the work of burying anybody on Nisan 15 any more than he would be doing that on the weekly sabbath. No pilgrims would be doing the work of coming into Jerusalem for the Passover festival on Nisan 15, contrary to Mark 15:21-32. Mark’s gospel incorrectly calls Nisan 14 the first day of the feast of unleavened bread. So, Mark, a Roman author, doesn’t understand the Passover. Dr. Ehrman, is the Greek word for `the preparation’ used in Mark reserved only for the weekly sabbath?
“Preparation” refers to any day prior to a celebratoin that does not allow for cooking (Sabbath; certain festivals): the day before the evening is when the food for the next day was “prepared” (Shabbat or Pesach or whatever)
Thanks Dr Ehrman. Great questions and answers. The gender neutral language one is particularly close to my heart. This issue comes up a lot in my Bible study group. Some members get very annoyed at the lack of inclusive language, even when, as you say, this is because the original text was not intended to be inclusive. Their argument is that the Bible should speak to us today and take no account of the patriarchalism of the time it was written. So you can’t please all of the people all of the time 🙄.
Why do you think Paul could not have been a Roman citizen?
Most people in the empire were not citizens; he himself never says anything abou it; he was not upper class; andr he suffered corporal punishmebnt by Romans three times, which was not allowed for citizens.
Relating to your answer regarding whether the NRSV ever screws up by using inclusive language, I point you to your post of September 2012 (https://ehrmanblog.org/problems-with-the-nrsv-part-2/) where you point out that the NRSV translators messed up by blindly using inclusive language in Heb 2:6-7, where it was totally inappropriate, just because the Hebrews passage references Psalm 8 where it is appropriate.
Yup, it’s a huge problem that the translators didn’t see. I did object to it at the time, but to no avail….
What are the reasons for doubting Paul’s Roman citizenship?
Most people in the empire were not citizens; he himself never says anything abou it; he was not upper class; andr he suffered corporal punishmebnt by Romans three times, which was not allowed for citizens
Is there a best guesstimate for dates for the last mentions of Peter and Paul in Acts and therefore the time gaps between those “acts” and their deaths?
They are ususally thought to have been martyred in teh mid 60s CE; Acts was probably written no earlier than the mid 80s, or as late as 120 or 130 CE.
Sorry, I meant the dates for the last mentions of their acts within Acts.
Ah. Acts doesn’t give any dates per se, but most chronologies put the final chapters of Acts in the early 60s. Peter of course is not mentioned htere.
It is reasonable to assume that the authors of the New Testament would count days in the Roman style which was inclusive of the day that you were counting from. For example the eighth day nundinae was called the ninth day because the prior nundinae was included. So in that style of counting it makes sense that they would include Friday in the count of days. Thus Friday, Saturday and Sunday would be three days, even if less than 48 hours.
Dr. Ehrman,
I’m new to the forum and am unsure how often you respond, but I’ve been deeply engaged by your reflections on the problem of evil, which I’m wrestling with myself. Is what I’ve written below biblically faithful?
I’m exploring a theodicy that reframes natural evil not as a challenge to divine goodness, but as a modal necessity once God freely chooses to create. I think that the Maximally Great Being (MGB) kenotically self-limits at creation—freely choosing to forbear full omnipotence and omniscience in order to express love in morally meaningful ways. To realize omnibenevolence, The MGB remains fully actual in essence before creation, but necessarily becomes dynamically expressive once creation is willed.
Natural suffering becomes structurally required for goods like free worship, sacrificial love, and moral urgency—conditions essential for meaningful communion with a dynamic MGB, and for realizing omnibenevolence in a morally rich, cruciform way: not just loving despite suffering, but through it, even in solidarity with the innocent.
Natural evil, unlike moral evil, establishes the conditions of human finitude, allowing for courage, uncertainty, mercy, and moral gravity—realities necessary to engage omnibenevolence as a lived moral relationship, not just a static attribute. Thus, the question shifts from “Why evil?” to “Why creation?”
Gratefully,
Jake
I’d say it’s a thoughtful explanation of “why suffering.” I would not say it’s “biblical” since its not a view any of the biblical writers put forth. But I (personally) don’t think that the best explanations for most things are “biblical”
Does that mean the Last Supper would have taken place on Thursday night?
Yes. That’s why it’s called Maundy Thursday.
Hello Bart:
There exists at least one basic problem (and actually more). The women arrive on Sunday morning and discover an empty tomb. However, the alleged resurrection could have occurred any time from the burial [Friday before sunset] until the discovery of the empty tomb [Sunday morning]. See the reference for a more detailed explanation.
Michael J. Alter
The Resurrection and Its Apologetics: Jesus’ Death and Burial Volume 1 [see pages 151-152, 159-160]
In a previous comment, I suggested that Mt. did mean 3 days/nights and was serious about the Jonah reference. We know that it’s perilous to try to harmonize the four Gospel accounts in detail, since their passion narratives satisfy somewhat different agendas – e.g. Jn. on the day of crucifixion. But there’s good reason to understand the Jonah story itself metaphorically; it is permeated with metaphor, including, surely, the residence inside the fish as representing a sojourn in the “deep” – the realm of death. Earth was, for Jews, an imperfect mirror of the Heavens. And the tehom, it seems, was a mirror that distorts in the opposite direction – complete chaos opposed to perfect order. In Mt., I surmise, Jesus submits himself to the “powers of death” at a very specific moment. It seems to come on Thursday – at the meal at Bethany. It is then that a woman anoints him – as king, to be sure, but also for burial (a common theme in rites of passage), Greek entaphiasame. And it is the exact moment that Judas departs to betray him. 3 days/3 nights.
If I’m remembering correctly, I think it was James Tabor who suggested that the Qumran community followed a solar calendar, while the Jewish elites in Jerusalem used the standard lunar calendar. According to this idea, in the year 30, Passover would have fallen on a Wednesday for those following the solar calendar, and on a Thursday evening (technically Friday for them since the day starts at sun down) for those following the lunar. This could explain why Jesus celebrated Passover a day earlier—he would have been observing the solar calendar—while those who arrested him, still preparing to eat the Passover according to the lunar reckoning, avoided entering Pilate’s residence to avoid ritual defilement. This would explain why they didn’t go to the tomb that Passover Friday, because it was considered a sabbath day. The next day (Saturday) was also obviously the sabbath. If that If that’s accurate, then Jesus would have been crucified on a Thursday, not a Friday. But it would make sense of why they said 3 days. Do you find that plausible?
Passover in Jerusalem was observed by the calendar followed in Jerusalem, not the one at Qumran.
Josephus mentions a “Gate of the Essenes” in his description of Jerusalem’s walls, which suggests that the Essenes may have had a presence within the city itself. Some scholars propose that this gate was located along the southern wall and may have led to an Essene Quarter on Mount Zion. Interestingly, Mount Zion is also the traditional location of the Last Supper. If Jesus and his disciples were staying near this Essene area, it’s possible that their observance of Passover followed the Essene solar calendar, rather than the mainstream Jewish lunar calendar.
The third-day tradition has long intrigued me. It has to be earlier than Paul, and because it’s time-specific, it seems to go back to earliest Christianity. If the tradition came from Hosea 6:2 only 5 years after Jesus’ death, seems like people would instantly question it, Why didn’t you tell us he rose 5 years ago on the third day? Seems like such a time-specific tradition would need to go back even earlier.
And it’s unclear, when Paul says Christ was raised and seen, what kind of visions were people having prior to the narrative gospels and their appearance stories? Did they think Jesus was raised/exalted to the heavens immediately, and that appearances weren’t earthly, but sights of Jesus exalted in the heavens at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1)?
And did Mark invent Good Friday to narratize “on the third day” on the first day of the week? But if so, why does Mark say “after three days” in Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34 instead of “on the third day” like Paul, Matthew, and Luke. I’ve even wondered, did Mark get “after three days” from Daniel 9:27 (Greek, “half of a seven”) and is that what Mark 14:58 meant?
We don’t know when they started saying it was on the third day; if they didn’t specify o=the day earlyt on , it seems unlikely that anyone would be upset if they did specivy it later.
The early appearances of Jesus were probaby taken to be sightings of him retunred temporarily from heaven to communicate with his followers (as happens in other Greek and Roman tales of people exalted to heaven.
Jesus was almost certainly killed on a Friday, and so Mark keeps that. The “third day” quickly came to be “after three days” even though technigcally that doesn’t work well. (As almost no one has noticed still today unless it’s pointed out to them!)
[continued]
Matthew seems uncomfortable with Mark’s inclusive counting of Friday, Saturday, Sunday as three days because Matthew 27:62-66 almost sounds like it’s inserting another day into Mark’s narrative so there’s “three days and three nights” (Matt 12:40). The Jonah typology seems to be late and Matthean (which Luke then included) because the rest of NT seems unfamiliar with it.
When Jesus attacked the Temple, I think he probably said something like Mark 14:58 because it’s so pervasive in Jesus traditions (even John 2:19; Acts 6:14; Thomas 71). And Mark writes to refute that by saying, “No, this (Mark 11:17) is what Jesus actually said publicly, and this (Mark 13:2 Western) is what he really said privately, and the public misunderstood.” It’s also interesting that as Mark describes the Jewish trial, it’s all about Jesus and the Temple (Mark 14:55-61a), but then it turns sharply and Mark has it to be all about Jesus’ identity (Mark 14:61b-64). Did Mark flip the script?
So did the third-day tradition begin with Jesus’ words in the Temple (Mark 14:58), and early Christians quickly shift it to be about Jesus’ resurrection?
thanks for addressing the 2 evenings, but 2nd God never died or else universe would cease!
ai:
Thanks for addressing the “two evenings” issue — it’s a helpful clarification on the Jewish reckoning of days. However, I’d like to point out a key theological consideration: the idea that Jesus was truly dead as God raises profound questions, because if God truly ceased to exist or died, the entire universe would cease to be. In Christian doctrine, while Jesus’ human nature died, God’s divine nature is eternal and unchanging. So, God does not die; rather, Jesus’ death is understood in the context of his human nature within the hypostatic union.
I recently tallied up all quotations/references to the Old and New Testament in the works of Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius. I won’t provide all the stats here since I’m sure a scholar has done it earlier and better than me, but there were some very interesting findings. 1 Corinthians and Ephesians are by far the most widely used, though Ephesians is believed to be a later forgery in Paul’s name. Mark, Revelation, and Philippians are never quoted. This is especially interesting considering the proposals I’ve seen (not sure of the scholarly consensus here) that some or all of the apostolic fathers’ works are later forgeries (when these works would have been around for quite a while, and began to pick up authority in some circles). Does this suggest anything about the early circulation of scripture? For example, that 1 Corinthians and Ephesians may have circulated independently from other Pauline letters early on, while Philippians circulated less widely or later on. Or, perhaps, that Mark was not widely circulated even though its descendants Matthew and Luke were?
Yes, good work! That’s precisely the kind of thing scholars do to determine which books were cirulating when. But it’s a tricky business for a wide range of reasons, and there are lots of disagreements. (For one thing, if a teaching of Jesus found in three of the Gospels is apparently quoted: which Gospel is being quoted? !) There are indeed books that provide lists of such things for the Apostolic Father and several entire books written on the use of the NT in the Apostolic Fathers. (I contributed to the most recent one)
Do you have thoughts on where and when Paul died?
My guess is mid 60s, probably in Rome. The legends put his death at 64 CE in the persecution of Nero. I doubt if the Nero part is right, but the time and place maybe be right.