(11 votes, average: 4.64 out of 5)
Loading...While I’m on the “Jesus and Mary Magdalene” question (see my earlier posts), what about the claims that some (lots) of people have heard, that there is a story in a later Gospel that talk about them kissing?
The later Gospel in question is the Gospel of Philip, one of the “Gnostic Gospels” discovered in 1945 near Nag Hammadi Egypt. Does it actually talk about this moment (or repeated moments) of intimacy?
I have a reasonably full discussion of the relevant issues in my book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene (Oxford University Press 2006). In the book I put the discussion in the context of that one-time-source-for-all-things-bibical, Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code. Back 20 years ago, (nearly) everyone had read it and (most of them) thought the fictional account was, as Brown himself claimed at the outset, based on historically factual information. Sigh…. In any event,
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!
We now know where he kissed her.
He kissed her on the gap.
Problem solved.
Would it be fair to say that the single best NT summary of early Christianity is Paul’s Letter to the Romans?
I find the gospels confusing, not to mention the Bible as a whole. Atheists are always saying that if there is a perfectly good, omnipotent God-especially one who has ordained an eternal afterlife of either heaven or hell-he would clearly communicate his existence and will to human beings. That seems like a very strong argument for atheism.
I suppose it’s dangerous to look for simple answers to complex questions. But one has to at least start somewhere.
It strikes me that, if Romans is the best summary, one could use it as a framework for reading/understanding the NT as a whole. Not that Romans’ message would always necessarily override everything else but it would be the starting point.
That might improperly overlook the uniqueness of each NT book. But I suppose I’m thinking of something more like an approach that could develop a coherent theology rather than an approach to simply understand and interpret the books of the NT.
No, I don’t think so. Paul is writing his letter precisely because there were others who disagreed with him! That means, by definition, they would have strongly opined that his views did not summarize those of all ealry Christianity.
Indeed, the views Paul advances in Romans cannot be found in most of the other authors of the NT (some can be, but many of the key ones are found only in Paul; his views in Romans, for example, are very much at odds with those presented in the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, when it comes to the significance of Jesus’ death — which is very intriguing, since the author of Luke-Acts indirectly tries to inform us that he was Paul’s own traveling companion for a time!) disabledupes{34d1263c2d6c340a79b5cef821a00adc}disabledupes
Is that a link at the end? It looks like random text to me. Also, new to the blog, happy to be here. Thanks for all the content you put up, it’s super helpful.
Random!
Hey Bart, could you help me understand something? I was listening to an apologist who shared an opinion based on the Gospel of Matthew 23:35. It mentions Zechariah, stating that the Pharisees couldn’t kill him because he lived earlier. Then Jesus says that upon them will come all the blood from Abel to Zechariah. The apologist concludes that verse 23:36 doesn’t refer to that generation because the Pharisees listening to Jesus didn’t kill Zechariah. Based on this, he argues that Matthew 24:34 also doesn’t refer to that generation. He adds that the Greek word “γενεὰ” has two meanings and can be translated as both “generation” and “race,” depending on the context. How accurate is this? Can the word “γενεὰ” mean not only “generation” but also be used in other contexts? Sorry for going off-topic.
Wow. That’s a bit of a strange interpretation, if I’m understanding it rightly. Read the entire chapter: Jesus is attacking the scribes and pharisees (the “seven woes”) and indicating that they will all be condemned (leading to teh apocalyptic discourse of chapters 24-25). They are opposed to God and are aligned with predecessors who were always opposed to God (vv. 29-32). They won’t therefore escape. They will be held responsible for all the violence against God’s prophets from Abel to Zechariah (Matthew appears to confuse Zechariah the son of Barachiah of Zech 1:1 with Zechariah the martyr killed iin 2 Chronclse 24:20-22). They are guilty of the blood spilled by their predecessors as well as what they themselves have spilled (notice what happens in Matthew 27:25 — the *descendants” of those who called for Jesus crucifixion are held responsible for his death: “His blood be upon us *and our children*! — as if the descendants htemselves had done it). In any event “the generation” in v. 36 has to be that generation of Jewish opponents, no? What would it mean if it were translated “race” here – that all Jews who ever lived would be found guilty for killing the prophets and accordingly punished? Including Jesus the Jew? He is clearly saying that the day of judgment for sin is coming within that “generation” / “period of time” (as he says later in 24:34). The word can indeed mean “race” in some contexts — but clearly not in these places. What sense would it mean to say that the Jewish race will not disappear before thee end comes? What would be the point of saying it. The whole issue is that you need to “watch” and “be ready” because it is to happen soon, even though no one knows the time (see 24:36-25:46, immediatly after!)
Thank you, Bart, you’ve understood everything correctly. By the way, regarding Matthew 25:46, in the original text, does the word mean eternal punishment or eternal torment? In your book, you write that it’s eternal punishment, eternal death, saying that it parallels eternal life, but you also allow that it could be eternal torment. What does this word mean in the original Greek, eternal torment or eternal punishment?
It doesn’t use the term for “torment” but the word for “punishment.”
Some Orthodox Christian apologists will argue until they’re blue in the face that “Zechariah the son of Barachiah” is clearly the father of John the Baptist (“it’s so obvious! Why don’t these Western Christians accept what is clearly a tradition of the early Church!”). I heard two OC apologists follow this up by saying, with all credulity, that the orphaned John the Baptist (narrowly missing Herod’s baby massacre) was raised by angels in the Wilderness. So God allowed 10,000 babies to get killed but was able to save one and even appoint angels to raise him to adulthood. How nice. Sometimes I can put up with seminary educated grown men saying stupid things, but this one annoys me no end.
I can see why….
Is there a standard Bible reference that identifies and explains NT references and allusions to the OT? Is there a particular one, or several, that you’d recommend over others?
Most any good study Bible would do it. I prefer the HarperCollins Study Bible or the Oxford Annotated Bible. They have footnotes that deal with all sorts of things, including these Scripture quotatoins/allusoins.
I think a lot of women were rooting for Mary Magdalene to win the gentle hero, me included, but I think it’s more likely that Jesus traveling with 12 young men and 1 young woman is in the tradition of the 12 princes and 1 princess of the Transjordan nomads.
My guess is Jesus considered Mary Magdalene like his daughter.
Hi, Bart!
Do you have a post/chapter regarding your born again experience that you had in your youth? (If not, I kindly ask you if you can consider it)
I think it would be of great help if you could tell your story in detail about what you felt then, how you were thinking about God and life and how these things influenced the life you had then. I don’t understand the experience other people have regarding a new born life.
Is it thought-induced?
Is religious conditioning/indoctrination the factor that made you and makes people accept and repeat certain ideas, like being/feeling born again?
Where does it come from and how is it built up in the life of the people? “What you do not know you cannot experience” seems to be the truth here, but I would like to expand on these questions.
Why do people attribute the the truth of any religion to the personal experience? People have had experience in all religions and they hold to the experience to be true, hence their religion is true
Sorry for the many questions. The subjects intrigues me a lot
Thanks. No, I’ve never gone into all the details, I guess because it starts feeling a bit too personal. My sense, though, is that most people accept religious “truth” almost entirely because of personal “experience” of one kind or another.
Serene,
Mary Magdalene was not the only woman travelling Jesus. There were many who were also supporting Jesus financially and taking care of practical issues enabling Jesus and his men to concentrate in their spiritual business (Luke 8:3). Without a doubt the mission to proclaim the very soon to come Kingdom of God would not have been possible without the ladies’ support and caretaking. But do we read Jesus thanking them for their suppoert anywhere in the gospels. On the contrary! Remember Martha and Mary. Jesus praised Mary for sitting and listening to him talking instead of helping her sister in serving the guests.
The disciples seemed to be quite ”carefree”. Forgetting to take enough food with them when going to remote places with Jesus.
They would have starved to death without women. Maybe the feedigng miracle was actually women taking care of the crowd when hungry discples were munching the two breads and five fishes that one boy had with him. A lot wiser guy than the those that Jesus had chosen to be the rulers of Israel’s twelve tribes ”when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne.”
Hi Stratovaari!
There are men besides the 12 Apostles following Jesus, too — the women in Luke 8:3 aren’t grouped with the 12 Apostles like Mary Magdalene is. Early Christianity calls Mary Magdalene the “Apostle to the Apostles”.
Of women in Luke 8:3, Joanna, Chuza’s wife is the standout. Chuza is a classically Nabataean name. He’s finance manager for Herod Antipas:
https://ehrmanblog.org/did-paul-the-pharisee-learn-about-christianity-from-his-relative-the-apostle-junia-guest-post-by-james-mcgrath/
Antipas is patrilineally Edomite, matrilineally Samaritan, with a Nabataean dynastic founder, Cypros and one, far-away Hasmonean Jew ancestor. (Joanna is likely Apostle Junia, name adapted to Rome.)
•The disciples are not described as the “12 tribes of Israel” in the Gospels. They’re predominantly Galilean!
They’re not forgetting to take food, they were on the run from agitated Second Temple backers in previous passages.
The feeding ‘miracleʻ of the 4,000 – the word miracle is not in the Gospels – likely stems from the Qumran Essenes 4,000 serving vessels. Qumran shares coin stashes with Petra, who Josephus said united with Jews against the Second Temple during the previous administration of Aretas III. The Transjordan is one sociopolitical identity in the war secretly planned against Antipas for breaking his Nabataean marriage.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/qumrans-true-purpose-discovered/