Loading...What were the major issues, concerns, and debates confronting the earliest Christians? My book After the New Testament: A Reader in Early Christianity (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed, 2015) addresses these issues. I’ve explained the book in my two previous posts. Here is my third, again giving an excerpt from the General Introduction, explaining the rubrics I used in the book to cover the vital topics of Christian Origins, chapter by chapter. At the end I provide a bibliography for further reading, books that cover the history of the period broadly and competently.
******************************
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!
A thought came to me while doing yard work – sorry if this is going off-topic but I wanted to ask. I wondered if it is possible because there is no evidence for how Paul passed, if it is possible because the coming kingdom never materialized in his lifetime, if he simply lost faith and turned away? I know this is something of a stretch, but for someone with that much influence and supposed renown, one can wonder if later writers and storytellers simply ignored anything further he may have had to say. I am not saying I subscribe to the idea, but I wondered if this notion has been bandied about somewhere in the annals of biblical scholarship.
It’s certainly possible, but I can’t think of any reason to suppose he did. He seems maleable enough on sme things — including his realization that he might die before it happens, which does not seem to be in the picture at all in 1 Thess. 4:13-18 but is definitely in the picture in 2 Corinthians 5 and Philippians 2.
Dr Ehrman, reading through some of your earlier posts I gather that you take the position that we do not have reliable history about what happened to the original disciples, except for maybe Judas and James. Some of that history is given in Eusebius’s History of the Church and in the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles to name two sources. On what basis do you feel that history is unreliable?
There have been many, many studies of the legendary materials in Eusebius, not just from the earliest periods. But the reality is he does not discuss much about what the disciples did after Jesus’ death. Our understandings of their later missionary activities and deaths comes from apocryphal tales for the most part, not Eusebius.
Hi Dr. Ehrman, I was wondering if you might have an insight as to how early Christians, and religious scholars today for that matter, might interpret the relationship between Jonathan and David in 1 & 2 Samuel. Reading it today, I can’t help but feel that the love between them seems to be described in fairly intimate and romantic terms. As someone who was raised in the church but has since left, I was surprised to come across these passages, as I don’t remember the story of Jonathan and David being addressed. How might modern readers interpret their relationship? What interpretations might early Christians have gathered from these passages?
Oh yes, this is a much talked about topic in some cirles, and has been for several decades, since the passages do indeed seem homoerotic. For most of history, and for most readers today, I suppose, the passages are read in non-erotic ways. They were just really good friends. I don’t think any early Christians on record thought otherwise. Whether that’s a satisfactory reading of the passages or not is a debated issue.
Re-post: It would be a great help if you could give your insight to this question because, I thought the same as you did too. Until I did some research which led me to think differently. The description of the greek words used in Rev 21:1-9 such as a Tabernacle is among humans, New Jerusalem, he who who thirsts from the spring of water of life, are all contrasted in Rev 21:10 – 21:5 where he is moved to a high mountain, why? Now what he is seeing is described as, Jerusalem and not New Jerusalem, No Tabernacle, now its God and the Lamb. And no temple, and now humans are bond servants, instead of dwelling with them, now they’re face to face with God. The spring instead, is now a river of life. The heaven and earth (New Jerusalem) seems more spiritual and consistent with well, earthly references and possibility’s. Where (Jerusalem) has more physical aspects (gold and pearls etc.) not so earthly. Also would we still be referred to as humans at this point? There is more of course, based on Christs accounts found in the Olivant Apocalypse chapters and elsewhere to support this hypothesis.
I can only perceive your ignoring my question twice, as a way of avoiding answering it. I do believe your capable of answering the question. I can only then assume, that you know I am seeing it correctly, otherwise you would have said something by now. Your avoidance alone in answering speaks volumes and serves as a type of answer that will suffice.
I”ve already explained my view of it and why I have it, so I’m not quite sure what else you’re looking for. If you’ll look at my earlier reply you’ll see what my view is. The fact that I’m not reitertating it should not be taken to mean that I have nothing to say.
You’re welcome to have your own view, of course, and to argue for it. But it does not seem the most natural way to read the text and I’m not sure I know of anyone who has argued for it — but given how many millions of readers have examined the text, I’d be amazed of others haven’t as well. disabledupes{887b2de1caa52a821357304fe4c682e0}disabledupes
I never seen a response to this question, which is why I reposted it. I understand your view that you gave to me on your recent interview on History Valley. This question was a follow up question, to ask why they vary so much between the two, yet you still hold the opinion you do. (not to challenge you view) Why we would be referred to as “humans” in heaven? Why heaven coming down to earth would still be referred to as new heaven new earth but replacing the old. Why a tabernacle would be necessary when we are face to face with God Himself etc. etc. The original language it was written in to describe these events led to investigate it further. Honestly, have you ever just (especially in greek) compared rev 21:1-9 to rev 21:10 -22:6? How could this be the same place. I am not interested in views sir, but facts and those facts define my understanding and I was under the impression that this was a forum where such questions and subjects could be explored. Remember, I had the same view also and it’s not easy being a “lone wolf” who just wants the truth.
I took my first semester-long course on Revelation almost exactly 50 years ago and have studied it since, for most of my life in Greek, and have recently written a book on it. So I think you can trust that I’ve compared 21:1-9 with the passage that comes after it. 21:2 refers to the coming of the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven and compares it to a Bride; the next passage speaks of the Bride as Jerusalem coming down from heaven (21:9-10). That makes it clear that they are referring to the same entity. If we find inconsistencies between teh passages that is not at all unusual for the book of Revelation, but more like the rule. We learn in the context for example that all sinners are destroyed in the lake of fire and then that none of the sinners on earth will be allowed to enter the New Jerusalem. What sinners? They have all been destroyed in the lake of fire. You may want to read my book where I discuss such things.
Your years of experience on revelation is what lead me to ask these questions. I understand your reasoning, and I can definitely get on board with the confusion and inconsistencies of the book (must of have been a very trying and confusing first semester) but, these two chapters do seem more lucid than others if by just a little. I still wonder about the language used though in 21:1-9 ie. such as “human”. If we are still considered “humans” after death and living in the new heaven with God (that of I have not found) I can understand, if not, seems more misleading to use such a word “human” or it is literal and causes me to search further. I will read your book. What is the title you are referring too. And specific chapters you can direct me to, on this subject we have been discussing, would be appreciated, honestly besides chapters 1-3 and 21-22 I don’t really care for revelation, I liked your take on it, in that it is “not a book of hope” or really even relevant for a disciple since it is largely abused and Highly misrepresented. I thank you for you time sir.
It’s called Armageddon: What the Bible Really Says about the End. I don’t deal with the specific question you’re asking about the relationshipo of 21:1-9 and 21-10ff since it’s not a much disputed issue in the interpretation of the book, but I certainly discuss what is happening in 1-3 and 21-22 in the book as you’ll see.
Interesting.
So I bought the book.
Insight I was hoping for.
Hi Bart. As clearly understood, Jesus thought that son of man(judge) would be coming to earth with angels to gather sinners and righteous. Those who couldn’t be saved would be cast into gehenna, but righteous ones would enter the kingdom of God. What I am wondering is do we have any indication/cue where this kingdom of God would be – would it be on earth or somewhere else ? As Paul says, he divides the universe into 3(up there – god, middle -earth, down -deceased) and Paul believes that alive + deceased would go “up” to bring Jesus to earth where Jesus would establish the kingdom of god on earth. What did Jesus think himself about where the kingdom of god would be exactly ? Could you point out the verses if there’s any ? Thank you.
Jesus appears to have held the apocalyptic Jewish view that the kingdom of God would be here on earth, as a real kingdom. God created the world as a paradise (Eden), humans (or something) mucked it up, God was going to get it back to the way he wanted. Paul too had that view, but toward the end of his life he appers to have come to think that he might die and have some kind of existence in heaven before the kingdom came. But it was still coming to earth. (That’s why in Jesus, e.g., people will be “eating and drinking” in the kingdom and “coming from east and west” to enter into it; it’s a view that continues on even into Revelation, where the new Jerusalem is on earth)
Hey Bart. Thanks for answering. My worry is that Jesus never says that it would be on earth. Since you also emphesize that Mark, Matthew, Luke are most believable than John, can you tell where in any of these 3 gospels, Jesus mentions that kingdom of god would be on earth ? Would appreciate couple of verse numbers you can point out so I can read and focus on them. Thank you.
Do you mean that he doesn’t actually use the phrase “on earth”? I suppose that’s true. But when he refers to the Kingdom he talks about people coming to it “from East and West” and having banquets in it etc., and I’m not sure how that would work (especially the journeys from eastern and western realms) if it wasn’t on earth. I’m not sure I know of discussios of the kingdom in apocalyptic circles that locate it somewhere other htan here, since the point is that since God crated this world he would redeeem it, restoring it to the paradise he originally planned. That too, of course, is the view in Revelation later, where the new Jerusalem descends to earth and that’s where it is lived out.
I think your answer is pretty good. Just want to point out that it’s not a very solid proof as in the same sense someone would actually proof some math theory. While I am here, I’d love to hear your opinion on the following. Is there any solid proof that apocalyptic Jesus also believed in the resurrection of the body of individuals on judgement day ? In some verses(mark 12-24:27, Luke 14:14), it’s said: “Raised from the dead, resurrection”, but that doesn’t mean “bodily resurrection” and only place we interpret it as bodily is John 5:28-29(the most un-trustworthy gospel along those 4). Can you point me in the direction of how I can make myself believe that Jesus subscribed to the view of “bodily resurrection ?”
You may want to read up on what “resurrection” meant to ancient Jews. So far as I know, it always referred to bodies coming back to life, even in metaphorical usages (starting with Ezekiel 37; see also Daniel 12:1-2)
Hi bart
In 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8 Paul used the language that the has reseved a tradision. Some scholars have said that it comes from someone important .Does he indicate that it comes from someone connected to jesus or is it a normal tradision.
He says he’s handing over a tradition “that I received.”
Hi bart
In 1 coeinthians 15: 3-8 Paul uses 12 apotles two times why is so?
Does he?
Hmm. If a book is “divine”, why does it need lowly, ungodly sinners to interpret it for all the other lowly, ungodly sinners?
Respected dr. Bart Ehrman, so i just wanted to understand something correctly, do the majority of historians agree upon that its bedrock that jesus was seen after his death? or that his followers thought he was resurrected from the death? or both?
I’d say most historical scholars think either that Jesus did appear to others (this would be the view of most Christian scholars) or that some of the followers *believed* or *thought* they had seen Jesus, yes. And in either case they would have concluded that he was raised from the dead.
am sorry just to be more accurate, was he seen after his death? and did they assume when they saw him (the same people that saw him) that he risen from death? it’s important for me because if they only saw him without assuming he rose from the death then this would solve a lot of questions for me.
and one last question i promise. the minimal facts of gary habermas are very probable or probable but not certain according to 90% of scholars right?
Yes and yes.
I don’t know what the percentages of scholars are; I would say they are not certain according to 100% of *me*!
Thanks so much Bart for these fabulous posts outlining your book and its format. I read it years ago. This outline would certainly be an aide to anyone reading it now.
Thanks so much, but i have theory which double ascensions substitution theory. based on our islamic sources there can be 2 ascension. before crucifixion he ascended and travelled to galilee. From galilee he ascended to god. That explains the post crucifixion appearances because we believe someone else god made look like jesus that was crucified. Is this theory reconciliable with the minimal facts that we have? I mean if the historical BEDROCK testimonies of the people that spotted didnt contain that he was resurrected then this confirms my theory of him being spotted after the crucifixion before the second ascension to god, then there is no discrepancy between islamic and historic narrative.
Drmustafaalj12: see 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Paul only records appearances of Jesus after the Resurrection, including the appearance that he personally witnessed. His is the closest to BEDROCK that there is, but he also never knew pre-Resurrected Jesus. Gospel of Luke records the Ascension as happening only in Jerusalem (end of Luke and again beginning of Acts). Neither Matthew’s nor John’s Gospels record the Ascension. The last part of Gospel of Mark, not considered original, records the Ascension but does not record if it was in Galilee or Jerusalem. If I understand correctly, the only source for God making it only look like Jesus was crucified is a divine revelation to the Prophet as recorded in the Quran 600 years after the event.
“including the appearance that he personally witnessed. ”
On the testimony of 2 or 3. No one else can confirm St paul’s conversion [ only Ananias that recovered his sight]
What I do know from some of Professor Ehrman’s colleagues or students is st Paul was successful in the creation of house churches.
I tried to be a “Christian” without St Paul’s writings, unfortunately that was impossible!
No few passage can not be considerd as Bedrock. You need to study the history before calling paul a bedrock. Only things which is multiple attested by 20+ sources are considerd as bedrock. Therefore whole paul epistles can not be all considerd as bedrock. Now the evidence for the second ascension is quiete historical and reasonable. If jesus 100% historically appeared, after crucifixion then its only reasonable to assume that he ascended afterwards. As for the evidence of the substitution(god making someone look like jesus) and the first ascension that we have through revelation through the prophet