Loading...I was reluctant to write my first trade book (Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet: see previous post), and had to be dragged into writing my second. I just wanted to devote myself to technical scholarship. But, well, I yielded in the end, and I’m glad I did.
My second trade book ended up being two books. I had agreed to write about the “heretical forms” of Christianity and their Scriptures, but then my publisher, Oxford University Press, talked me into not only doing that study (Lost Christianities) but also an accompanying anthology of texts, Lost Scriptures. Once again I was reluctant (!) but I lost out again, and again I’m glad. It’s been the better selling of the two books, to my great surprise.
Here I’ll explain what it contains, taken from the Introduction to it (OUP, 2003). This will take two posts.
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!
Is there a means to determine how popular particular versions of Christianity were in first few centuries after Christ? Perhaps roll call at councils that indicate the number of representatives from churches that held views that were later determined heretical. For example, Marcionism is often described as a “popular” view, yet how popular? And how do we know that?
For the most part we only can gauge how popular alternative forms of Christinity were by evaluating the extent and intensity of the opposition (and what the yactually say) and by considereing which alternative writings appear through archaeological discoveries.
Concerning Christians between Jesus’s death and Paul’s first letter: how much can we know about them? For instance, concerning the idea that Jesus death is an atonement for sins. If I understand you correctly, you believe that Jesus never taught this doctrine, but also that Paul did not invent this idea. Meaning that this teaching originated during this poorly documented interval. How can we know such a thing? For instance, how do we know that this is not Paul’s idea?
We can’t know for absolute certainly about much of anything, but in some cases probabilities are amazingly good, other times very good, other times good, etc. In this case, I’d say they are pretty good, because (a) Paul was persecuting Christians almost certainly for making such claims before he converted; (b) he indicates that he met with the apostles and dealt with the things they didn’t agree on, and this the most central focus of his ministry didn’t come up; (c) we have no other indications that Paul’s Gospel was *fundamentally* different from theirs in the traition outside of Paul. So it would take a while to develop the argument, but these would probalby be the or some of the salient points.
Hello Bart I had two questions regarding two examples of literary motifs in Mark’s Gospel.
1. Do you think the raising of Jairus daughter could be a metaphor of people who died before Jesus returned? Paul famously takes notice of this concern in his letter to the Thessalonians that dead people will miss out in the coming kingdom. I think it makes sense since the story is framed as Jesus being “on his way” but being too late to heal Jairus’s daughter before she dies and then bringing back from her sleep to the joy of her parents. If so I think this showcases some literary genius from Mark that Matthew changes due to lack of understanding.
2. Do yo think the early Christians thought Moses was assumed to heaven? I ask this because of the transfiguration episode shows both Elijah who went up to heaven alive and Moses appearing alongside Jesus. Mark doesn’t seem to think of heaven as a place you go after you die so it seems he or the early Christians believed Moses also was assumed to heaven alive as Josephus and some apocryphal Jewish traditions mention.
Thx again for your time and all you do.
1. I think it could be *read* metaphorically, but our only source for it, Mark, uses it not to that end but as a literal account of the great power of jesus that almost no one could recognize.
2. I doubt it, though we do find Jewish traditions that attest the view.
If believers choose which text was sacred and god didn’t, does that mean there’s a lot of human bias built in from what earlier Christians wanted or people with the power of influence at the time? I think both Jews and Christians reduced the gods to one god, just so it is easier to manage the narratives. Just like in the old days, as today, we have lots of Christian denominations, and we can’t seem to get them all to agree just like in the old days.
Yes, I’d say all human religions are heavily based on human bias.
Thank you, Bart, for all your writings. We need to be reminded about how our Bible came to be. We also contemplate (thanks to your writing, for me and for many others) the fact that there really no such thing as an “authoritative version” or an “original version” — only versions that humans have for time to time given these designations.
We all have translations of the Bible that we prefer, and almost all thinking people recognize that: 1) different individuals have different passages that they believe were inspired by an unknown “Devine being” (which is unknown and not defined), as well as many other passages they believe were based on mistaken beliefs; and 2) some individuals (such as you, Bart) who say they don’t believe there are any entities “Devine being” entities. We “believers” think that someday everyone of us will learn that our belief is the correct one. The research into reincarnation at the UVA Medical School by Dr. Tucker and others indicates that there is a real possibility that your spiritual self may came back as the child of other parents (this may also be an event in our futures also).
Bill Steigelmann
Do you think that any of the books that got excluded from the canon reflect the teachings of the historical Jesus and his direct apostles more closely than the ones that did get canonized?
No, not at all; quite the contrary.
In the history of religions, do scholars find a tendency for polytheism to evolve into henotheism or monotheism (or the latter through the former)?
It seems to have happened in Judaism and in the pagan ancient world.
I think nowadays even many theists would have to admit that monotheism is not inherently superior to polytheism. In many ways polytheism seems more natural, eg, fewer presuppositions.
I’m wondering this from the standpoint of trying to reconstruct some kind of religion that’s more closely aligned with science. I don’t see how one could start with an assumption of monotheism.
Except that John Stuart Mill, who I believe was an atheist/agnostic, in his speculations about a possible natural religion, thought the uniformity of nature argued for monotheism as more likely than the others.
Or it could have been Richard Swinburne—or both.
Yes, that view is often expressed.
That would be awesome if you blogged on Greek mythology. Dr. Ehrman, have you heard of Pan or Silenus? Do you know of anyone that has a blog like you do, but for Greek mythology?
Yes, I do. And no I don’t!
I am so happy your heard of them. Some one such as your self would be amazing teaching Greek mythology. I’m sure the Gods are proud of you anyway. I truly believe the Gods love those who are to good themselves and others. The Gods and Zeus can hear you Dr. Ehrman. Keep up the great work! I believe your work is not going unseen.
Do not stop being a good person because of bad people. 🙂
Random question, but what is your take on Josephus mentioning phenemonons happening before the destruction of the temple in 70 ad? (Chariots in the the sky, temple doors opening, cow giving birth to lamb,ect.) This has me stumped as other historians quote Josephus. How would you explain these supernatural claims?( The Talmud mentions some of these phenemonons too)
Like every source, Josephus has to be read with a critical eye and a pound of salt.
Hi bart
In galatians 2 Paul meets Peter and other apostles and he says he talked with them to find out was hes precing invain so he wanted to know if the apostles also belived that jesus rose again and died for their sins, also in that part he says “they added noting to my message” firsty what does this mean does this mean they were in disacrement of the historical jesus or were they just acepting that jesus died for their sins?
He means they agree that gentiles did not have to become Jews to be followers of Jesus. None of them disagreed on the importance of Jesus’ death and resurrection for savlation.
Hello Bart
I have been wondering for long that in 2 corinthians 12 Paul says he did miracles could he mean it in a sacrastical sence or in a methaforical?
aslo the story that paul tells about jesus last supper is it a tradision or is it from god or does it come from Peter meaning Paul is a secondery eyewitness of the things that happened on the last supper (if it did happen) if so it makes a question did Jesus really prophecy his death.
He seems to mean it literally.
We don’t know where Paul actually received his information about the Last Supper. I wish we did!