(11 votes, average: 4.82 out of 5)
Loading...Another one of the new boxes in my textbook on the New Testament
*********************************************************
Another Glimpse into the Past
Box 21.2. Jews and Gentiles in Paul’s Churches
The earliest Christians, immediately after Jesus’ resurrection, were obviously Jews: eleven of the apostles (minus Judas Iscariot) and a handful of women, including Mary Magdalene. Once these followers came to believe, they converted others they came into contact with – all of them, at first, Jews. But the Jewish Christian church was never a huge success. Later sources occasionally mention smallish Jewish groups of Christians, but apart from the church in Jerusalem, these never played a huge role in the ongoing life of the church in the early centuries. Jewish Christianity was almost always on the margins.
It was probably heading to the margins by …
To see the rest of this post you’ll need to belong to the blog. It takes little effort and not much money to join. And you’ll be so loaded up with important knowledge you won’t know what to do with yourself. So why not??
One can’t help but wonder what Jesus would have made of this–he was open to gentiles being in the Kingdom, but his ministry was in the main to his fellow Jews. His antagonism to the Jewish leadership largely stems from his perception that their overly formalist rules-based approach to religion is a negative influence on Jews of that time, holding them back, making it harder for them to attain the Kingdom. Obviously they have no such negative influence on gentiles, who don’t care what the Temple priesthood or the Pharisees think. Gentiles have a different set of problems, and Jesus knows he can’t reach everybody in the short time he has to preach his ministry.
However, it is interesting that he is reported to have consorted with people who are not in any sense conventionally practicing Jews. People the Jewish establishment would view with disdain. He would naturally gravitate towards those more receptive to his message, like any preacher. It is possible that had he not died, his views would have continue to evolve with regards to gentiles. But his Judaism was so central to his view of the world, I can’t see him ever abandoning it. And of course, neither did Peter, Paul, or Mary Magdalene.
I assume everybody heard about that Jews for Jesus ‘rabbi’ appearing at the event in Pittsburgh?
Oy vey.
(I learned that from my mom, who is Irish Catholic, but grew up in Queens.)
😉
I can see how pagans would be more accepting of the idea of God having a son, since mythology is full of divine offspring, whereas the Jews believed God was one, not two or three, and there’s no mention of God’s son in the OT. Even so, Paul says the idea of a crucified savior seemed foolish to most pagans (1 Cor. 1:23), but it was probably a snowball effect, that as more people began to believe it became easier for others to suspend their disbelief and join in.
Given this, how can we trust that any Christian texts reflect the message and ministry of Jesus?
We have to do critical historical work, just as we have to do if we want ot know the message of the historical Socrates or the emperor Claudius etc.
I would guess that this lack of Jews converting to Christianity is because the Jews anticipated a different kind of political Messiah, not a crucified Messiah.
Doesn’t charity begin at home? In light of the fact that “people of Paul’s race” are still being blamed for killing Christ (among other alleged crimes, real or preposterously imagined), do you not think that Christian clergy of all denominations should examine their own weekly roles in demonizing Jews? Why can’t people seem to worship and adore their own God without denouncing non-believers? Maybe if I fell off my horse and hit my head I’d understand better.
Yes indeed!
Bart,
I have learned from Jewish and Christian historians that the moneychanger tables incident is seriously problematic.
The moneychangers did their business in an gentile marketplace of a temple courtyard area greatly expanded by Herod, and they were doing legitimate business, changing moneys from travelers who could then purchase a sacrificial animal as required in Deuteronomy 16:2 & 14:22-26. It seems to me that Jews would know this and thus reject the moneychanger narrative and with it the Crucifixion story itself, for historians also generally say the moneychanger incident led directly to the Crucifixion.
Your mention that gentile Pagans had taken over the religion by the latter first century when the gospels were all written would explain this, and I think bring us to seriously question both moneychanger and Crucifixion narratives. That both narratives appear in all four gospels leads me to believe that my Jane Roberts/Seth source is the more correct — A man mistaken by the authorities as Jesus turned over the moneychanger tables and was arrested and executed for the disruptive act, cheered on by Jews — but Jews more knowledgeable of the truth would reject Paul’s foolish message of salvation, as they did. Paul of course never mentions a moneychanger incident and probably wouldn’t even know of it.
I’m writing a couple of books on the idea, so it is important that I have it right. Could you comment as to whether you see any holes in this alternate idea?
What kind of research have you done on the question? One of the important starting points would be E. P. Sanders learned and influential treatment in his book Jesus and Judaism.
Hi Bart,
I found an 8 minute video of your mentioned source E. P. Sanders. He is very good (that means he confirms my developed ideas ha ha). I will likely add him as a source.
My main Christian sources used are Robbin Griffith Jones (“The Gospel According to Paul”), Luke Timothy Johnson, Amy Levine. You have of course been a good source also. My primary authority, however, is, as I’ve said, Jane Roberts/Seth. But as for what Jesus actually taught, I use sources Bhagavad-Gita, Buddha, Allan Watts, and the like (and particularly Jane/Roberts Seth), and this brings me to the Gospel of Thomas which most closely is a like teaching to all of the above.
The one line I think historians have yet been unwilling to cross is in challenging that the gentle teachings of Jesus and the violent moneychanger and Crucifixion stories don’t match. Jane Roberts/Seth gives the simple answer: There were more than a single “Jesus”, and the words and actions of a true master and a false master got intermixed and was picked up by Paul and his pagan following.
Thanks for your given source. Mainly he explains how Jews have been demonized in order for the new religion to stand out, and his 8 minute video confirms the legitimacy of the moneychangers.
Is it possible that there was no “mistaken identity” and that Jesus’ problem with the moneychangers was that they were gouging the Jewish pilgrims in the transactions? The problem with this is that reason was never given in any of the gospels. Also interesting is Luke’s version only describing those “selling things”…”moneychangers” not mentioned. If that were true, it would be disquieting for all churches conducting craft fairs, Bingo, bake sales, etc.!
Bart,
I plan to use your book “Forged” as a listed reference, primarily for the two letters of Peter as not written by Peter. And your given reference EP Sanders will be listed, mainly to document that moneychangers were doing legitimate temple business. It’s a short non-fiction book, just 60 pages. I would like to give you a complimentary copy, that I’ll publish on Amazon in the next couple of weeks.
Thanks for the E.P. Sanders reference.
Jesus and other Jews probably didn’t have a problem with the job of the money-changers in the Temple per se. I mean, someone had to do it. Their issue was probably the same issue we have today with exchange rates of currency, viz. the money exchange was likely to gouge out of a hefty amount of value of your original currency. That is, the money-changers were probably seen as charging exorbitant and unfair amounts of fees for making the exchange. And seeing as how usury was highly forbidden back then, Jesus and his followers probably saw the money-changers as transgressing the Torah. And that’s why Jesus attacked them.
Along that line, could it have simply been that Jesus was an ignorant Galilean hillbilly educated is whatever Torah he heard talked about or read in Synagogue and making his first pilgrimage to the Temple late in his ministry…. It was a long walk perhaps arguing against his really having been there multiple times. I think to link the possibility that the money changer scene was story creep to the crucifixion being someone else is limited by Tacitus comment in Annals. Tacitus appears to have known of the crucifixion of … somebody believed to have been Jesus through Roman lore.
I think this is Bart’s general theory: Jesus just some guy (or nut) who believed the world would soon end. But I think his teachings are too elevated for that, particular those in the (heretical) Gospel of Thomas — so elevated that the average man thinks it’s gibberish.
So, if Jesus is really the Master then he didn’t turn over moneychanger tables nor was he executed. This leaves just the theory of a true and false Master’s antics becoming intermingled, confusing the authorities. And this works quite well.
I wouldn’t put it that way. I think Jesus is the most significant figure of our entire form of civilization.
Bart,
Yes, the most significant figure in our form of civilization, but I understand you as believing he was an unknown at the time, and preaching an apocalyptic message that didn’t catch on until his very small band of followers made up the resurrection story. If I understand you correctly, this would make him significant on a false premise, not otherwise significant.
In fact, I can envision mythisists saying this too, a myth being the most important element in our recorded history. (not that I believe them, however).
Please clarity again if I have your position wrong. Thanks very much.
I wouldn’t call him a “nut” or “some guy.” He was a charismatic and persuasive proponent of a vibrant understanding of the world at his time, with brilliant ethical conclusions about how we ought to live.
But honestly, Bart, anyone who goes around saying the world is ending soon and goes and causes a ruckus in the marketplace to honor his “father’s name” and gets executed for the act, and then his prediction never happens — would by any standard be called a nut.
Maybe by 21st century American standards, yes. But not in his own context.
Bart,
I don’t see that EP Sanders comes up with any better explanation for justifying the moneychanger incident than the other views he criticizes. I believe there is no justification for it. Either it didn’t happen, happened differently (someone else did it), or Jesus was no elevated Master — particularly true given it led to what should be an expected arrest and execution.
Now add to this the Resurrection and the whole picture is out of the ballpark whacko.
talmoore,
As I see it, Christians had to back-engineer the reason for turning over the moneychanger tables — Jesus had good reason for doing it or otherwise he wouldn’t have done it. So there’s the Hollywood view that the moneychangers were inside the sacred temple, and/or they were just plain greedy, charging too much money for the exchange.
Even given this unsubstantiated speculation there remains a problem. Why didn’t he give them his shirt also when they asked for his coat? And if peace is the important element why didn’t he appeal to them or to other authorities that they lower the rates? But even that would be problematic. Why would a man speaking of a heavenly kingdom bother with the workings of civil government?
The recorded event just doesn’t make sense. But it can’t be wrong because every word in the Bible is the inerrant word of God. So, what to do?
There are really just two possible credible answers. Either Jesus was a nut preaching of end times or he was blamed for the act of another man (the actual nut). There is no other option that is in any way credible.
Unlike Dr. Ehrman, I am not inclined to think that Jesus was some kind of teacher of ethics, so I don’t see any problem with Jesus totally losing his cool in the Temple. Indeed, I think that Jesus wasn’t the love-monger often portrayed by the gospels at all, and I found John Meier’s attempt to prove Jesus the Hippy in A Marginal Jew to be unconvincing. The impress I get from reading the NT is that the “Let’s all love each other” Jesus was created after the fact, by the inchoate church, in an attempt to keep the movement united and at peace.
And this isn’t just mere speculation, because we see similar attempts at community building after the founder dies in other mass movements. For example, Muhammad very rarely talks about ethics and loving each other in the Quran, but the Hadith that followed Muhammad is full of Muhammad’s purported ethical and legal pronouncements. Why? Because Muhammad wasn’t really a teacher of ethics; he was a fiery apocalyptic prophet preaching imminent fire and brimstone, who spent most of his ministry trying to gain loyal followers. And it was only *after* Muhammad died that the leaders of the new Muslim movement needed to find a way to live and work together.
Sound familiar? Yeah, that’s exactly what happened with Jesus and the Christian movement. The leader dies and now those who he collected under his wing needed a way to stay united, so they retconned a Jesus who preached love and harmony — conveniently. If you ask me, that Jesus is pretty much a fiction.
(Note that Islam right after Muhammad was racked by internecine conflict that still resonates today, and Christianity right after Jesus was similarly struck by division within the movement. This is all too common in mass movements following the founder’s death.)
You don’t think that Jesus taught people how they should behave? Interesting… (Since that’s a good bit of his recorded teaching)
talmoore,
Interesting that you and I have similar but opposite ideas on the Jesus ministry.
I wholeheartedly agree that Jesus was necessarily one or the other (your version or mine).
For me it comes across that Jesus is the soft-spoken teacher of non-violence, of focusing on the inner, perfecting our own faults rather than look at the faults of others. It is clear that the moneychanger tables incident does not fit with the pacifist Jesus.
You could be right: the violent Jesus is the true one. It is the only other option, I think,
But I am certain that I have it right for these reasons:
1. My initial feeling about the legitimacy of the Bible not a “worldly” document, when I first read it while in “worldly” mental agony at the time,
2. The Jane Roberts/Seth material which says elevated master Jesus and a wanna-be Messiah were contemporaries whose separate missions became blurred and events created by the nut Messiah wrongly attributed to Jesus. I believe Seth has it right because his claim that he is an elevated entity living outside of our world is supported by a mass of Jane’s trance state recorded books, twelve or more volumes of fine print 450 page books published by major publishers and in reprint today. The material is absolutely exceptional, far about anything recorded in World history (unless I missed something else). And it makes perfect sense, is logical, and explains everything that can be explained. No doubt in my my mind that Seth has ability to access Akashic records and knows the events.
3. The Gospel of Thomas and a good amount of biblical Jesus sayings matches other such information conveyed by Masters in our recorded history, and mystic information given through history and currently. The information is right, and the average man does not understand it and cannot convincingly make it up.
4. It explains how a wrong message (Salvation through Crucifixion and apocalypse that never comes) could become the foundation of Western history. The true Master’s spiritual energy tapped into by average conventional men hijacking the true Master’s message and teaching nonsense — yet keeping alive the Master’s teachings that are understandable (love and peace).
the guy mistaken for Jesus was named Brian
Ha, ha, “Life of Brian”, I remember the movie. I did some biblical names research and am calling him “Dortus” for my historical novel which I think is a fitting contrast. But an internet friend said Seth identified his name as “Simon”. That wouldn’t be a good name for a story, would bring some confusion.
Bart.
Do you have a strong opinion on what the attitude of Jesus himself (rather than that of his followers) to Gentiles was? Was he attentive, indifferent, or something in-between?! Is there a consensus among scholars on this question?
My view is that Jesus did not think much of anyone outside of Israel. He did not have a wide vision, but was a simple Jew from a remote Jewish hamlet without much if any contact with the wider world.
“My view is that Jesus did not think much of anyone outside of Israel. He did not have a wide vision, but was a simple Jew from a remote Jewish hamlet without much if any contact with the wider world.”
But you do think Jesus envisioned Gentiles being allowed into the Kingdom of God …
Ah good point. I do think that. But I don’t think that Jesus made any effort to reach out to gentiles during his public ministry, or that it even occurred to him. His focus was completely on Jews in his homeland. When he said that others would come to join the Patriarchs, his view was being driven by Jewish rejection (i.e. in a sense it was still all about Jews….)
“Ah good point. I do think that. But I don’t think that Jesus made any effort to reach out to gentiles during his public ministry, or that it even occurred to him. His focus was completely on Jews in his homeland. …”
To the extent that Jesus saw his northern ministry in Galilee and that of the twelve apostles to all twelve tribes, including the lost sheep of Israel, he may have seen himself as going to people if mixed ancestry. Do you agree?
No, I tend to think that the people he saw understood themselves to be thoroughly Jews.
“No, I tend to think that the people he saw understood themselves to be thoroughly Jews.”
Do you really think there were significant numbers of people who still identified themselves as members of the tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, which had been completely destroyed 750 years prior? In the first century were there still tribes of Ephraim and Mannaseh, of Gad and Asher, Zebulun and Naphtali, Reuben, Simeon, and Issachar? How were the twelve to sit on twelve thrones and judge these twelve tribes without some sort of restoration of these tribes?
No, I think they identified themselves with Judah. It was through this remnant that the whole nation would be restored.
“No, I think they identified themselves with Judah. It was through this remnant that the whole nation would be restored.”
That certainly is not true of the Judeans at Qumran or the texts (sectarian or nonsectarian) texts they collected there. (Nor did they exclusively identify themselves exclusively with the priestly tribe of as some might have expected.) Instead, they overwhelmingly identified themselves with Israel and continued to speak of the individual tribes. Why should the Galileans have only identified themselves with Judah? Some were imported there, that is true, but do you really think when Jesus called twelve disciples to judge the twelve tribes, he was thinking only of Judah?
Because Jews were from Judah. The twelve would represent restored Israel, but they weren’t descended from the Israelites outside of Judah/Benjamin. You mentioned Jason Staples article; if you have about three years free time, you might want to read his 800-page dissertation on what “Israel” meant in ancient Israelite/Jewish writings.
“No, I think they identified themselves with Judah. It was through this remnant that the whole nation would be restored.”
The views of Jesus may not be recoverable on this point, but I agree with (your student?) Jason Staples on how Paul saw the redemption of all Israel as linked to that of the nations and the promise to Abraham.
“I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery (lest you become high minded yourselves) that a hardening has come upon a part of Israel until the fullness of the nations [τὸ πλήρωµα τῶν ἐθνῶν] has come in—and thus [καὶ οὕτως] all Israel will be saved … ”
See Staples JA. What Do the Gentiles Have to Do with “All Israel”? A Fresh Look at Romans 11:25–27. JBL 130, no. 2 (2011): 371–390.
Of course, if you repunctuate that sentence, it says “I do not want you, ignorant brothers.” 🙂
“Jews of course were from the House of Israel; but not from the ‘lost tribes’.”
Of course, Jews were not from the lost tribes, becauseJews/Judeans included only the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, sometimes referred to as the House of Judah, the Southern Kingdom, as opposed to the House of Israel, the Northern Kingdom. The ‘House of Israel’ could also refer to the originally unified Kingdom of David or Solomon or all Israel, ie, all twelve tribes, or as part of the eventual restoration of the House of Judah with the House of Israel and it is these senses that are found in the prophetic restoration texts.
See, for example, Jason’s thesis, p. 142: “The Book of the Twelve [minor prophets] is not alone in this emphasis; the major prophetic books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel similarly construct a future, restored Israel comprised not only of those descended from the deportees to Babylon but of the ‘whole house of Israel,’ that is, all twelve tribes.”
See also, p. 153, where he cites specific texts of Jeremiah, for example:
“See, days are coming,” declares YHWH, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. … This is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days: I will put my law within them and will write it on their hearts, and I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jer 31:31, 33).
For the Psalms of Solomon, see p. 391:
“The eschatological restoration envisioned by the Ps. Sol. is not merely the ‘hope that all Jews will return to Jerusalem’1236 or ‘the release and return of the dispersed Jews to Israel,’1237 as Ps. Sol. nowhere mentions ‘Jews.’ Rather, these psalms hope for the restoration and return for Israel—including all of the non-Judahite tribes—from their dispersion among the ‘mixed nations’ (συμμίκτων ἐθνῶν)’ (17:15; cf. 9:1–2).”
I’ve already mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls, but for more detail on this see Jason’s thesis, pp. 419-425.
Can you give any examples where the ‘House of Israel’ refers only to the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi? Why should we read the idealistic apocalyptic Jesus tradition as referring only to such a limited vision? If, as you believe, Jesus saw even Gentiles as being part of the Kingdom of God, why would he not also include all twelve tribes of Israel?
I think we’re maybe talking past each otehr — possibly because I have to respond to these things so quickly. But I think restoration theology *was* concerned with all twelve tribes, not just the three that survived. But I thought you had asked about Jesus’ own historical context, and I was simply saying that it was to “Jews” not to people that he might have imagined were in other tribes.
“Because Jews were from Judah. The twelve would represent restored Israel, but they weren’t descended from the Israelites outside of Judah/Benjamin. You mentioned Jason Staples article; if you have about three years free time, you might want to read his 800-page dissertation on what “Israel” meant in ancient Israelite/Jewish writings.”
So whereas I think it more likely that Jesus, a northerner from Galilee, saw himself and his twelve as being really and truly sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel in the towns of Israel (Mt 10,6.23), you seem to be saying that he really only meant this symbolically (“the twelve would only represent restored Israel”) to denote the House of Judah, which also included Benjamin and the Levites in Jerusalem?
Think about it, would a prophetic/apocalyptic messiah really be satisfied with such a merely symbolic restoration of Israel? I think he wanted all Israel to be restored. Where do you see any indication in the early Christian texts that Jesus was only really interested in Judah, Benjamin, and Levi?
Would love to read Jason’s dissertation, by the way.
Jews of course were from the House of Israel; but not from the “lost tribes.”
There were lots of gentiles in Israel–he undoubtedly met many.
As a Jew, Jesus believed his God was the only God–the creator of all people, everywhere. And as the creator of all people, He was responsible for all people.
So to me what makes sense is that while he, Jesus, could not know very much about people in the larger world, he was aware of them as fellow mortals, souls who might also merit being in the Kingdom. Jesus went to some pains to make clear that being an observant Jew was not enough to earn you a place there. And one way he did that was to make clear that even Samaritans (who Jews despised perhaps more than anyone, because no feud like a family feud) could be worthy of the Kingdom, if they treated others as they would be treated. There are too many stories about Jesus having approving reactions to pagans to be a later invention.
I agree he didn’t think much about it, but only because he believed God and the Son of the Man would attend to it. He couldn’t minister to the whole world. Now if there had been television— 😉
Do you think that the passage in Mark about dogs and bread and crumbs is something that Jesus said (or at least a Markan attempt to express a sentiment Jesus articulated at some stage during his ministry) or was it made up by someone in the years between Jesus death and AD 70 for another reason?
I’ve never really been sure.
“I think we’re maybe talking past each otehr — possibly because I have to respond to these things so quickly. But I think restoration theology *was* concerned with all twelve tribes, not just the three that survived. But I thought you had asked about Jesus’ own historical context, and I was simply saying that it was to “Jews” not to people that he might have imagined were in other tribes.”
I am less optimistic than you about recovering specific views of Jesus, but it seems very odd to me that he would understand his and his twelve apostles’ mission to the lost sheep of the House of Israel to not include any of the northern tribes of the northern House of Israel. Certainly Jesus disagreed with the view that would later be attributed to Rabbi Akiva that the 10 lost northern tribes would not be part of the world to come.
Since we agree that Jesus’ apocalyptic theology was indeed concerned with the restoration of all twelve tribes, and that he saw the Kingdom of God as open even to Gentiles, how can you be so sure that he did not see his own calling and the mission of his disciples as not also geared to the lost sheep among the northern tribes of the House of Israel?
Because those people no longer existed. That’s the problem. Only descendants of the three tribes were around.
“Because those people no longer existed. That’s the problem. Only descendants of the three tribes were around.”
But some did still exist, especially the Samaritans (claimed to be descended from Ephraim, Manasseh, and some Levites). Of course, these people were despised by Judeans/Jews as not pure, but the gospels of ‘Luke’ and ‘John’ exhibit a more positive attitude. Luke also depicts Anna, his elderly prophetess character, as being of the tribe of Asher* (2,36). Matthew saw it as pesher fulfillment of Isaiah that Jesus began his ministry in the Land of Zebulun and Naphtali.
I am less optimistic than you that we can reconstruct the theological views of Jesus, but a good case can be made that he was less interested in some of the purity laws of the Judeans/Jews of his day and may have adopted a different attitude toward the Samaritans.
*Forgive me for this one, but I have also wondered whether Mark (or even Jesus if based on an historical kernel) might have seen the Syro-phoenician woman (7,26) as partially descended from the tribe of Asher (אשר), which had become more or less absorbed into Assyria/Syria (אשור), which Herodotus and other ancient Mediterranean authors conflated.
The normal idea is that hte bloodline had been lost because of forced intermarriages. Samaritans were Samaritans, not Israelites.
I recently read Zealot by Reza Aslan. One of his sticking points in there is that during the lifetime of James and Paul, Paul was a marginalized figure who was always frustrated because James was undermining the churches that Paul had established. That James was able to do this because he was the unobjectionable leader of the movement. Of course we see some of this in Paul’s letters where he fails against James, Peter, and the men James had sent to Paul’s communities. However, I had never seen the situation where Paul was unsuccessful and a fringe figure during his own time. According to Aslan, Paul’s message only came to dominate the Christian community after the fall of Jerusalem.
Is this a view that is at all supported by the scholarly community?
My view is that it is more complicated than that. I gave a long series of responses to Reza’s book on the blog years ago. Simply search his name and you’ll see the thread.
Why do I have this vision of a cartoon of Peter telling James “Good news – Paul wants to spread the word to the gentile lands” to which James replies “Great how soon can he leave?”
Do we know of other Jews/Pharisees like Paul who’s ministry was to convert pagans before the coming end?
Was the church in Rome likely started by Gentiles?
It has been a debated topic, but today it appears pretty clear that Jews were not interested in proselytizing for converts.
So James, Peter, John, etc’s effort to convince Jews of the return of Jesus and Paul trying to convert pagans was very unusual for that time period?
And if Jews were not interested in pursuing converts at all, it makes Paul’s efforts even more unusual?
Yes, I argue that at greater length in my book Triumph of Christianity. The evangelistic strain of early Christianity was quite distinct.
“The normal idea is that hte bloodline had been lost because of forced intermarriages. Samaritans were Samaritans, not Israelites.”
Do you think Jesus was hyper-concerned about pure bloodlines? I doubt his views on divorce would have agreed with those of Ezra in rejecting the wives and children of intermarriage with locals left behind after the Babylonian exile of the elite Judeans.
Not at all. I just think that no one imagined there were any of the other ten tribes still around.
“Not at all. I just think that no one imagined there were any of the other ten tribes still around.”
‘Luke’ and his readers certainly imagined that some people from the 10 northern tribes were still around (eg, Anna of the tribe of Asher in Lk 2,36) and the Samaritans certainly imagined that they were the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh. Samaritan traditions are difficult to date, of course, but already the gospel of John attests to an early belief on the part of the Samaritans that they were descended from Israel (Jn 4,12).
For my purposes, it does not matter whether these beliefs about ancestral heritage from the earlier legendary and mythical tribes were actually true. It is sufficient to show that it was definitely believed by some in the first century CE that there were still some descendants from the 10 northern tribes around at that time.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you agree that this is how Paul and the early Christians viewed the resurrection?
“Humans sin and die in material bodies and they must be redeemed in physical bodies. Any other kind of deliverance would be an admission of defeat….If redemption does not restore God’s physical creation, including our material bodies, then God’s original purpose in creating a material world would be frustrated.”
Yes, pretty much. You are asking a lot of questoins about what I believe about the resurrectoin. The easiest way to get answers for those questions is to read my extended account in How Jesus Became God. If you still have questions *after* reading it, I’ll be happy to address them.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you agree that the events Paul describes in 2 Corinthians 12:1-7 is NOT his conversion experience with the resurrected Jesus?
* Among other things the dates don’t add up: 2 Cor. written circa 56 CE, and “14 years ago” would be 42 CE
Yes, I agree.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you agree with this assessment?
“…many Jews did not believe in resurrection at all because it was an innovation. It wasn’t part of their earliest tradition. Even Pharisees who did believe in resurrection would find it difficult to believe that God had raised up someone of their own generation, especially since God had not yet judged the world. And those who heard that Jesus had died on a cross would find it particularly difficult to believe that God had raised Jesus, since they would think that such a death implied God’s curse, not salvation…Paul has to insist that it [Jesus’ resurrection] is at the heart of the Christian faith.” – “Reading the New Testament: An Introduction” By Pheme Perkins, Paulist Press, 2012
Yup.
Dr. Ehrman:
Per the 15 days Paul spent with Peter and James: “…this visit [to Jerusalem] is one of the most likely places where Paul learned all the received traditions that he refers to…And when would this have been?…say the year 35 or 36.” Bart Ehrman “Did Jesus Exist?” p. 131
Do you still agree?
Yup. ONE of the MOST likely. There are others, and it may be the less likely is what really happened.
Dr. Ehrman:
Paul returned to Jerusalem to “set before them the gospel I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running in vain” (Gal. 2:2). Paul says of the ‘pillars’ per the gospel he preached, they “added nothing to me” (Gal. 2:6) and v. 9 …they gave the right hand of fellowship to me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the Jews.
Would you say that Paul and the ‘pillars’ were on the same page about Jesus’ death on the cross and his resurrection, and that it was just peripheral issues of the law that they disagreed about?
In Paul’s view they were certainly on the same page about the death and resurrection; but neither he nor they saw the points of disagreement about the law as peripheral but as absolutely fundamental. (Consider what he says about those who disagree with him on the issue in Galatians!)
Dr. Ehrman,
So then what Peter and James were preaching is what’s known as today a “Christ Plus” message? Meaning salvation is through Jesus’ death and resurrection plus law-keeping?
They wouldn’t have put it that way. They thought Christ alone brought salvation, but it comes only to those who are being faithful to God (which for them meant keeping Torah).
Dr. Ehrman:
So it is accurate to say that Paul, Peter, and James are all on the same page that Jesus died on the cross, resurrected and appeared and that Christ is the way for salvation; their disagreements pertained to the Jewish law?
That may be putting it too simply, since their views of the Jewish law did in fact affect their undrestandings of the significance of Christ and his death; notice that Paul says in Galatians 1 that anyone who disagrees with him on this issue — even believers in Christ, even angels! — is “accursed” by God.
Dr. Ehrman:
Points of conflict aside, generally, are these the things Paul, Peter and James would have all agreed on?
1) Jesus died on the cross
2) Jesus was resurrected and appeared bodily/physically
3) These things had consequences per the topic of salvation, and proved Jesus was the messiah
4) Jesus would make a “Second Coming” to resurrect the dead physically from their graves and transform this Earth into God’s Kingdom
I believe so, yes.
Dr. Ehrman:
Some say that certain accounts are apologetic, But do you think we can obtain as historical fact that the apostles did NOT think the risen Jesus was a ghost? (i.e. the multiple attestation of the eating of the fish in Lk. 24:39-43 and Jn. 21)
Nope. The reason we *have* accounts of Jesus eating after the resurrection is that hte authors had to convince fellow *Christians* that he was a real flesh and blood human being after the resurrection, not a spirit/ghost.
Dr. Ehrman:
Do you agree?
“…not only Peter and the other leading apostles in Jerusalem, but also those whom Paul calls “false bretheren,” agreed that Gentiles should be persuaded, or at least allowed, to enter the people of God…Peter and James agreed that faith in Christ’s death and resurrection was adequate for the Gentiles (“they added nothing,” Gal. 2:6).” – E. P. Sanders
Yes indeed. Salvation came based on Christ’s death and resurrection. But those who believed were to follow God’s law.
Dr. Ehrman:
“…both events [Jesus’ death and resurrection] were subject to public verification. They were not secret, hidden events that someone may have made up.” “Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene” p. 135
So would you say that even in a broad sense that Paul understood the importance of citing witnesses for objective corroboration based on real facts?
Yes, that’s his rhetorical strategy, in part.
Dr. Ehrman,
But it’s more than ‘rhetorical strategy,’ correct? Paul believes in these appearances and witnesses, and is not pulling a sham, right?
No, I don’t mean to say he was being deceitful. He really thought Jesus appeared to these people. The question is why he phrases it the way he does.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you mean his note that ‘most of whom are still living’ and that he presents the appearances in chronological order?
Yup.
Dr. Ehrman:
We know that Paul’s gospel included the main point of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Do you think this is a good quote to show that the pillars accepted that as their main message too?
From Gal. 2: “I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. ..As for those who were held in high esteem…they added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised…James, Peter, and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.”
Yes.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you agree?
“[In 1 Cor. 15:6] It does seem like Paul is convinced that others who are still alive had seen the risen Jesus as well. I’m not sure he felt a need to be backed up by others, but he certainly indicates that the church’s testimony about the risen Jesus was based on eyewitness testimony.”
Yup.
Dr. Ehrman,
What is your bona fide view of the group resurrection appearance(s)/visions/sightings? Are you adamantly against them, and if so, do you think your conclusion is based more on worldview or historical method?
Thanks
I’m not adamant, but I don’t think they happened. I think originally there were three or so people who had visions, they told others, who told others, and the stories came to be exaggerated, probably within days or weeks, let alone years.
Dr. Ehrman:
Do you agree?
“Paul reminded them (1 Cor. 15) that the gospel is an event in history. It was not something which was enacted in another place, like the activities of the Greek gods, but an actual happening. Paul’s noting of the “some who have fallen asleep” sets the stage for a discussion of resurrection as an awakening out of the sleep of death.”
Pretty much.
Dr. Ehrman:
Do you think that the the so-called “Christ hymn” of Philippians 2:5-11 dates back very early? And even if it does do you still think that 1 Cor. 15:3-7 is earlier?
I think all we know is that it dates before Philippians, as the Corinthian creed probably dates before 1 Corinthians. It’s hard to say much more than that, other than almost certainly neither one came into being at the very outset of the Christian movement. They reflect sophisticated thinking and theological reflection, and that takes time to happen.
Dr. Ehrman:
Do you agree with this quote?
“Paul held firm, whereas James astonishingly agreed that Titus did not need to be circumcised (Gal. 2:3), thereby releasing all pagan converts from the yoke of the Law, and implicitly affirming that faith in Jesus was alone necessary.”
That’s certainly what *Paul* seems to think (or says); whether it’s what James actually thought is a different question.
Dr. Ehrman:
People generally think of the ancient prisons as maximum security type places, but were many of them rather relaxed? Apparently they allowed Paul to compose and send out his theological letters from prison.
They were definitely nothing like maximum security. People from the outside would come and go regularly — for one thing to bring in food!
Dr. Ehrman:
Someone was saying that “The Twelve” was not collective. BUT am I correct in saying that In 1 Cor. 15:5-7 it is to be understood that there were 3 group resurrection appearances i.e. The GROUP of Twelve, the more than 500 “at once” and to a group of “all the apostles?”
I”m not sure what it would mean to say that the Twelve was not collective (a group of people). Are they saying that it is the name of an individual?
Dr. Ehrman:
Me: What about the 12 and all the apostles vv. 5 & 7?
‘Doe’: “I have always read those statements as distributive not collective.”
The only thing I can think of is that this person thinks that he appeared to each of the 12 one at a time or something along those lines, and not all “at once” BUT do you agree with me that the solo appearances are clearly noted as such i.e. Peter, James?
Absolutely.
Dr. Ehrman,
I think this is an eloquent and accurate quote, do you agree?
“…Paul reminded them that their movement was not a nebulous quest for ecstasy and other exotic states of mind. Rather it was rooted in historical events. Jesus had died a terrible death and had been raised physically to God’s right hand. He listed those who had seen the risen Christ – Peter, the Twelve, the five hundred brethren, James, and, lastly, he himself. Jesus’s death may have changed the course of history, but the process was not yet complete. It was only when Jesus returned at the Parousia that “we shall all be changed” and “death be swallowed up in victory.” Then and only then would Christ establish the Kingdom, “disposing every sovereignty, authority, and power.” – Karen Armstrong p. 86 of ‘St. Paul The Apostle We Love to Hate’ (2015)
I’m not sure anyone was arguing that the Christian movement was “a nebulous quest for ecstasy and other exotic states of mind.” I’m not sure what she’s referring to.
Dr. Ehrman,
What do you think of this quote/statement?
“…Paul’s claim that Christ was seen by all the apostles…should include at least Junia (Rom. 16:7)”
“Women and Christian Origins”
ed. by Ross Shepard Kraemer
Yup. She’s an apostle.
So do you think that in the creed Paul doesn’t include Mary M. because that was a solo appearance to a woman, and that testamony would’ve been less believable, BUT with Junia she was probably in a group with men included such as the 500 or all the apostles? Does this seem correct?
I don’t really know.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you agree?
“…even though [Paul] attempts to make a case that in his conversion he owed nothing to the [Jerusalem] church, he subsequently makes acknowledgement of its essential authority by submitting to the judgement of its leading members the gospel which he had been preaching to ensure his mission and message had not been in vain.” “The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church” by S. G. F. Brandon
Close. But I wouldn’t say he was willing to “submit” to their judgment; he rather worked to persuade them he was right. Because he “knew” he was.
Dr. Ehrman,
Does Rom. 1:3-4 reflect a primative tradition? Does it rival Phil. 2:5-11 or 1 Cor. 15:3-7 for the earliest?
Yes indeed. I’d argue it’s earlier than the Philippians hymn, but that it’s hard to date in relation to the creed in 1 Cor. I deal with all this in my book How Jesus Became God. I can’t remember if you’ve read it, but it addresses just about all these questions you’re interested in.
Dr. Ehrman,
Why did Peter and James feel the need to continue with the legalisms after they accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ? Did they still think that they needed to do both to be “saved” or was the tradition-keeping more about honoring their Jewish heritage?
“Legalism” has a negative connotation, and they certainly were not legalists. They were Jews who believed God had given them the Law and that it contained the will of God. There’s nothing legalistic in Jews or Christians behaving the way God tells them to.
1) Paul, Peter, and James all agree that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected.
2) These men also agreed that accepting this message was important to be “saved”
3) But now here’s the question: Do Peter and James still think that as well as Jesus they also need to maintain their tradtions to attain salvation? (Because Paul doesn’t seem to think that’s the case, unless Paul only thought that was for Gentiles, and Paul himself kept the traditions even after he accepted Jesus)
They didn’t think doing what God commanded in the law was for “salvation.” Jews didn’t think in those terms. You weren’t earning your way into heaven. You were doing what God told you to do.
Did Paul keep the traditions/law even after his encounter with the risen Jesus?
He says that he was “a Jew to the Jew and a Greek to the Greeks,” which surely must mean he kept the law when in Jewish circles, but not among the pagans, I should think.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you have any idea what this Professor is talking about? 1 Cor. 15:3 clearly says it was about sins, and that would also be the only logical conclusion since it was clear Rome still ruled…Am I correct?
Prof.: Died for “the sins of Israel”? No, they would not say that, at least not quite that way. Died as a deliverer for Israel, yes.
Me: What did they think he delivered for Israel if not saving from sin? He was clearly not a political/military Messiah.
Prof.: Can’t tell about that.
Lots of options. “Saving” for Paul does not refer to a past event at the cross, but a future event — people will be saved from destruction when the wrath of God hits this planet.
Hi Bart,
quick question! You are well aware how Paul uses the term ekklesia in a broader sense of the universal community made of believers from anywhere in the world (which was the Roman empire for Paul). This element of universal connection between local communities is something that goes beyond anything (as far as I know!) we see in other religious cults or clubs. That is one of the major differences between proto-orthodoxy and Valentinian gnostic scholls for example. I was wondering have you ever came acrross an article or a book that looks into this element of Paul’s churches or (in a broader sense) proto-orthodoxy? Only thing I could find was a short article done by K. Waldner “Letters and Messengers: The Construction of Christian Space in the Roman Empire in the Epistles of Ignatius” in which she deals with ways in which Ignatius emphasized this translocal connection into one Church.
Hope you can help me.
As you can see, in most of my comments I’m just looking for a book or an article since I’m a PhD student of ancient history and I really like to see the arguments myself. Hope you don’t mind!
P.S.
Croatia is still waiting for you and your family. You should really visit our beautiful coast!
It’s a great question. But no, off hand I don’t know anything on just this topic. (There are probably some out there, I just don’t know them) You might start, though, with some of the social histories of Paul, beginning with Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians.
What was Jesus’ position on Gentiles? Did he believe they could enter the Kingdom of God?
Also could Jesus’ behavior in Mark 7:24-27 and Matthew 15:21-26 be considered racist? When he refers to Syrophoenicians/Canaanites as dogs?
He though some would, yes. Such attitudes would certainly be considered by many people today as racist, but our views of race were not held by people in antiquity, and without having the same sense of race, it’s not possible to be the same kind of racist. Modern race theories were developed by anthropologists int eh 19th century. (I’m not saying there was not MASSIVE prejudice and bias and mistreatment of the “other” in antiquity; there certainly was. But skin color, for example, usually had very little to do with it.)