Loading...I continue here describing my book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene (Oxford University Press, 2005), with a final excerpt from the Introduction. In my previous post I discussed how historical accounts and literary fictions mix in the accounts we have of these three key followers of Jesus. I pick up from there:
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!
Jesus’ Followers in History and Legend
August 18, 2024
Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
13 Comments
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
So, Mary M ends up labeled as a prostitute. In Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus he mentions Tamar who got pregnant posing as a prostitute, Rahab the prostitute, Ruth who seduced Boaz, and Bathsheba who committed adultery with David. (One wonders why Mary the mother of Jesus was mentioned in connection with such women!?) But when I read the Old Testament it was the men who were most promiscuous, with all their wives and concubines and such. Why did the early church insist on portraying women as immoral, rather than the men? Were Peter and Paul ever accused of sexual impropriety? Is this a sign of a sexist patriarchy in the early church?
Right! But oddly, these passages have never been read as showing the men were problematic but that the women were promiscuous. Even among literalists today! But no, we dkont hear of such charges leveled against the apostles, though later “heretics” get accused of their fare share of them.
So one of your biggest critics on Youtube, @TestifyApologetics has been running quite a series of videos showing what a trickster you are, telling half-truths and ignoring context to deceive your followers and hide arguments that don’t favor your opinion.
One example I would like to hear you respond to is his argument where Jesus was the day after his baptism. He claims the contradictory accounts are not a contradictions because John the Baptists’ testimony about Jesus was a separate event from Jesus’ baptism.
“John doesn’t narrate Jesus’s baptism like the synoptics do but this isn’t a baptism narrative but rather John the Baptist giving testimony about an earlier event. Does Ehrman think that we’re not even paying attention to the text here at all? It’s almost as if Ehrman has an axe to grind because he’s eagerly packing his books with so-called contradictions that don’t really hold up.”
I can already anticipate your answer, that you can harmonize anything if you want to. But what would be your best reasons to not view this attempt as satisfactory?
Ah, I didn’t know about this site. But the contradiction isn’t hard to see (and it’s not as if I’m the first one to notice it! Anyone who reads teh accounts carefully should surely be struck by it). Just read passages in Matthew/Mark/Luke and notice what happens right after the baptism and then read John and notice what happens. In John we read “and the next day…and the next day…and the next day…” and there’s nothing about Jesus’ going to be tempted for forty days. In the others he goes to the wilderness to be tempted as the next thing. If this person thinks John knows about the temptation, when does he place it? And how is it that Jesus acquires disciples “the next day” if he was in the wilderness for 40 days??? It’s especially easy to reconcile passages when you don’t read them carefully and hope that none of your listeners do either.
Hi Bart
what do you think was the babylonian 70 years of exile prophecy a prophecy after the fact?
Sorry, I’m not sure what you’re asking.
Hi Dr. Ehrman –
This was definitely one of my favorite books of yours. On the subject of Paul, where do we get the dating(s) for his letters? I hear the dates 50 – 60s CE a lot. Are they just rough estimates, based on lengths of time it would take to accomplish what he outlines in his writings?
Thanks!
It’s complicated working out the dates of Paul, but putting the letters in the 50s is pretty safe. In Galatians, e.g., he says “after three years I did this” and “fourteen years later” that … so that provides a bit of framework. He mentions previous letters in some of his letters. So that helps. And there are sundry other indications that experts study in great detail. It’s not my favorite aspect of NT studies, but it’s important obviously.
Regarding Paul, I am currently reading How Jesus became God. You make it very clear that Paul’s letters predate the 4 Gospels. Did Paul have any influence on the Gospels? I would think the authors would have to have been aware of Paul’s letters.
It’s debated. The big problem is that we are used to books circulating widely everywhere at once, whereas in antiquity books could be around for decades before they became known in one place or another. Moreover, Paul must have written hundreds of letters. It would be remarkable if the seven that we happen to still have today were known to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all living in different places. But it’s possible! Like most issues of this sort, one has to find pretty compelling evidence if an unusual thing actually happeend, and in my view that’s what we’re lacking here, any actual *evidence* that the Gospel writers knew the letters of Paul that we have.
Thank you for sharing Dr. Robyn Faith Walsh’s two part post, Paul and the Anachronistic Origins of Early Christianity, which addresses my very question. I’m going to look into getting a copy of her book.
I just came across The New Testament: A Translation by David Bentley Hart (first edition 2017, second edition 2023).
Do you have any opinion on this? Thanks, Bart.
I haven’t studied it closely, I’m afraid.