Here are some spot-on questions from readers with (spotty?) attempts to answer from me….
QUESTION: (Note: this is a question about my views on how early Christians appealed to their martyrs as evidence of the truth of the Christian message in order to convert outsiders. The question is specifically based on the book called “the Martyrdom of Polycarp,” our earliest account of a Christian being tried and martyred for his faith)
Your integrated model, developed over this series, is becoming clearer: hell provides urgency, miracles provide credibility, and martyrdom functions as miracle in human form. That is a coherent and serious historical account.
But reading Polycarp’s response to the proconsul, I find myself pausing.
The proconsul threatens him with fire. Polycarp answers calmly. He does not sound like a man under pressure making a difficult calculation. He sounds almost expectant, as if death is not the worst thing that could happen to him, but something closer to a threshold he is ready to cross.
Your model explains well why that composure was persuasive to outsiders. What it seems to leave open is what produced that composure from the inside: why death itself appears to have been experienced differently, not just argued about differently.
That inner reordering, from death as threat to death as awaited encounter, seems to ask for more than urgency plus community plus miracle claim.
Does your framework account for that transformation, or does it explain the conditions under which such transformation became possible, while the transformation itself remains open?
RESPONSE:
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!
Textual criticism usually aims to reconstruct the “original text.” But if the Gospel of Mark developed through oral traditions, written sources, editorial revisions, and perhaps multiple drafts, then substantial editing occurred before what we call the “original” ever existed.
So what exactly is the “original text”? Is it simply the evangelist’s final edition, or is “original” an artificial concept imposed on what was actually a gradual process of composition? Should textual criticism focus less on recovering a single original and more on reconstructing stages in a text’s development?
This also raises a methodological question. Suppose Mark had not survived. Scholars might then infer a very large Q-like source to explain the material shared by Matthew and Luke. If so, could something similar lie behind Mark itself? Could substantial written sources or earlier editions have disappeared completely, leaving our present Mark as only the surviving final stage?
I know that reconstructing literary history from only the texts that happen to have survived has obvious limits, but that limitation itself is precisely what I find so intriguing.
Yup. That is an issue that has been hotly debated among textual scholars for the last 30 years. YOu might check out David Parker’s book, The Living Text of the Gospels.
Yes, I remember you recommending that book on your podcast. The problem is that there are simply so many books I feel I ought to read!
And almost all of them are in English, which is another challenge for me. It takes me about three times as long to read a book in English as it does in Japanese. On top of that, ordering academic books from Japan can be surprisingly expensive.
I think your first book is excellent as well, but since it is an academic monograph, it is understandably quite expensive. I’m not complaining, of course—just lamenting the challenges of trying to keep up with biblical scholarship in Asia!
Too many books. I hear you….
Hello, Shinji. Ohio Kazamis. Let me encourage you to add your voice – your Japanese written language voice – to the conversation. In France in the 18th century, Madame Emilie du Chatelet interpreted the written works of Isaac Newton into the French language. (Newton possibly wrote in the Latin language). Madame Chatelet added her own thoughts. Speaking of readily available books in the Japanese language, explore the works of C.S. Lewis. I became aware of one of his books a few days ago that is sympathetic to the early Gnostic theology. Maybe 100 years from now, someone will be translating your literature from the Japanese text? Maybe your voice will be ranked alongside C.S. Lewis and Bart Ehrman? Have a good day.
Ha! Very few people put C.S. Lewis and Bart Ehrman in the same sentence, except to show what an idiot the latter is! 🙂
Perhaps not too far afield…
Aside from being a rather extraordinary box office success, the new Christopher Nolan film version of the Odyssey has received a lot of comment from academics and classists both pro and con. Not your area of focus but as a scholar of the ancient world and a film fan, any comments?
As someone who grew up watching those old Hollywood “sword and sandal” epics I’m curious if we could see a fresh interest in other ancient lit for film.
I oddly haven’t seen it yet! I’ve been out of town and mainly out of the country since it appeared. (I tried to see it in London but it wsa sold out for weeks before I checked!) I’m eger to see it though. I think the big problem with criticisms I’ve seen is that people expect it to replicate the epic itself. They don’t recognize that it’s a different medium wiht someone telling a tale in his own terms, not precisely the same tale. For me it’s like people criticizing Jesus Christ Superstar because: “Hey, it didn’t really happen like that” or “THAT’S not what the Gospels say!”
RE: the martyrs are portrayed as actually not experiencing any pain.
It seems like an old truism and a necessary statement to make if one wants to maintain a faith under hardship, like the martyr stories we have in Maccabees. The concept continues into Islamic texts; “The martyr does not feel the pain of being killed except as one of you feels a bite/pinch.” (Sunan Tirmidhi, Hadith: 1668). While the earlier Buddhist concepts also presented the concept of self-distancing from pain, the Christian movement seems to have elevated the concept to the extreme.
Do you think martyrdom has ties to the story of Prometheus (as someone trying to save humanity from their self-destruction)? While Prometheus obviously ‘suffered’, he did not seem to be consumed by pain and he continued to survive under the daily assault from the eagle. I cannot think of any other earlier examples of a type of martyrdom from a ‘non-creator’ role model.
I think the point of the Promethues stories is that he was horribly tortured and in terrible pain in perpetuity and could do nothing to stop it.
Hi Dr. Bart,
The Marian apparition event in 1917 Portugal has become my last step from deconstructing. It was truly scary that “Mary” reportedly appeared to three shepherd (has religious meaning in Christianity) children and somehow showed them a vision of hell and made prophecies about the future.
I have previously made some comments on this on your blog, and sorry for asking again. I’m just wondering how to cope with such fear, and whether there is solid evidence that these things cannot be real.
Sorry for bothering you. I wouldn’t talk about this again in the future.
Are you saying you can’t imagine how these three did not REALLY see the realms of the dead? I’d say those kinds of visoins are recorded throughout history and in a wide variety of traditions, and that there are countless visions that peole swear they really saw that were non-veridical (the brain can do amazing things!)
It was said that Mary made some prophesy and they were later fulfilled. I do not know how true that is tho.
I just did some web browsing on this issue and asked AI about it. It seems like you’re the victim of religious propaganda. The alleged vision of hell was first reported in 1941 and only by Lucia Santos. Same with the alleged “prophecies”; they were only made after the events happened and only by her in 1941. From what I just read, Lucia was thought to be a liar by her mother and the other articles my web search found says she was known to be fantasy prone. The links I just found I’ve poste below. I hope you find them helpful. The so-called miracle of the sun was nothing more than the sun coming through the clouds.
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2009/11/the-real-secrets-of-fatima/
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2019/05/fatima-miracle-claims-all-wet/
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/the-marian-apparitions-at-zeitoun-better-evidence-for-christianity-than-the-resurrection/
Thank you for these information! I got really scared when I firstly see this.
If I may make a non expert comment on the first question. I am a pre-Vatican 2 cradle Catholic who had 12 years of indoctrination (not a criticism.) in catholic elementary and secondary education.Despite all mortal sins being equal some were more heinous than others. I would like to make an analogy for where denial of faith comes in. It is a matter of fact that once you are arrested you cannot be un-arrested. We were drilled that it was the one thing that couldn’t undo. Un-deny your faith. This was 2,000 years later so I can easily understand how the “Martyr” would jump at the chance to really impress the “Trinity” they were all in.
I was thinking again about the question I previously asked you regarding how textual criticism might develop over the next 100 years, and it led me to a related question about source criticism and the Synoptic Problem.
Assuming Markan priority, we have an extant source, Mark, together with Matthew’s and Luke’s redactions of it. Could recent advances in AI allow us to model each evangelist’s characteristic redactional profile by studying Mark → Matthew and Mark → Luke?
A key test might be to hide portions of Mark and ask the model to reconstruct the source from the corresponding Matthean and Lukan versions. Since the actual Markan text is known, we could objectively measure how well such an inverse-source reconstruction works.
If the method showed reasonable accuracy, it could then be applied cautiously to the Double Tradition—not to “prove” or simply reconstruct Q, but to compare how well competing models such as Q, Farrer, multiple written sources, oral tradition, or Q + Matthew → Luke explain the data.
Do you think recent advances in AI make this kind of computational experiment feasible enough to merit serious investigation by Synoptic scholars?
Yes, AI could do that. Humans have long done it. Who knows if AI can do it better yet. I imagine some scholars are trying it out.
Bart, a friend recently showed me his grandfather’s, Henry A. Sanders, dissertation while at the University of Michigan during the 1930s. Title: A Third Century Codex Papyrus of The Epistles of Paul, 1935. He researched and taught there until he retired. Amazingly even back then typesets included ancient Greek characters.
Are the name and topic familiar? The bit I was able to scan while visiting indicate he was a serious scholar.
Yup, I believe I read it when doing my dissertation. Sanders was a major figure in the field.
I recently had a friend say to me that the “word of God” &/or the “words of truth” are whatever is good for humanity and this earth.
Shouldn’t people be looking for whatever is good for us, no matter who did or didn’t write it, or where it is written?
That would be helpful!
Most people believe we have our brains and sense of discernment for a reason.
Everyone gets something wrong once in a while. Peter did, according to Jesus. One might figure that Paul, who didn’t even know Jesus during his earthly life, did as well.
Why are people so overly concerned about who wrote what when, and not concerned about whether something is a good, fair, healthy, and beneficial idea?
I don’t know. Some of us are very interested in both things.
The questoins of who wrote what when are important if we want to understand ancient writings and put them in context, since if we take them out of context we misunderstand them.
Lately, I’ve been listening to some documentary-type podcasts about Spinoza and Carl Jung. They say that Jung said this or Spinoza said that, and so on. Often, these are very good and insightful ideas. Sometimes they are not.
I have no way of checking if Spinoza or Jung actually said this that or the other thing. I simply do not have the time. So I have to use my own discretion in determining whether I think something is a good idea or not.
Does an idea carry extra clout or influence if it is attributed to a famous, prominent figure or not? Does it inspire people to think about the ideas more and take them a bit more seriously?
Thing is, I have no problem disagreeing with some of the ideas of Spinoza or Jung or someone else in a prominent position. I might take more time thinking them over or through, but still it is no big problem.
It’s a whole different thing when someone believes or even wonders if something is “the word of God”.
Catholics went through all kinds of kaniptions at the Reformation. Do Protestant fundamentalists need to go through the same level of kaniptions now?
Some apparently do!
“words of truth” are whatever is good for humanity and this earth.”
there are many ways of interpreting the bible. 25 years ago, I noticed except for Andrew Murray, S Africa & Watchman Nee, China but publishing house in ENGLAND.
all christian writers were of superpowers at that time: Rome, Germany, France, England & USA. & the publishers were either UK or USA.
See the similarity? God helping a superpower.
As my life, I’ve only lived in the USA & China- later as arising global power & my wholly Christian life was safe. Whereas here, I am excluded & battered by society & “neighbors”.
Molding Public Opinion- that’s what Christian Writers do, according to their experience & interpretation. & biblical studies are to promote PaxAmericana or whatever superpower.
When I was listening to my barber’s taped Chinese sermons- it was as far as my listening to Rightest material. home. & HK it was aspirational, from the microcosm theoretical need to reach out to the unsaved, while pushing me out. that was the last time I attended formal ministry 10/13/2019.
thank you Ms Young for your insight
Thank You for your compliment. Good Luck on your search.
I hope you won’t be battered and excluded in the future. I’ve experienced some of this myself, and I know how painful it can be.
Best Wishes and Good Luck.
Bart, the holy spirit’s nature and function is referenced quite varied in the Bible and how it should guide people is an open question to me because I see so many actions throughout church history that seems to NOT be guided by the spirit as referenced in the bible – heretic hunters chief among these.
I recently became familiar with the slaughter at the French city of Beziers, July 22, 1209. I’ll let others read about it themselves, except to say that somewhere between 7,000 and 20,000 people were slaughtered during a Pope authorized crusade to root out a christian sect called the Cathars.
If the Catholics and Cathars were truly Christians who had received the holy spirit, seems to me an accommodation of spiritual beliefs could be brokered ‘in the spirit’. These and other examples lead me to conclude that the holy spirit simply does not exist. Are you aware of any scholarly research regarding what the holy spirit meant, how it’s nature was understood and how it was thought to work inside Christians?
Much appreciated.
Yes, there are tons of books on teh Holy Spirit. One of the big problems with thinking that the Spirit will direct Christians into paths of holiness and concern for others is … history.
Sorry asking for a redo but…can you point me in the right direction? Maybe a scholar’s name?
I found a lot of devotional and personal growth books regarding how current Christians can be closer to the spirit but no scholarly books.
YOu might consider the books on the Spirit in earliest Christianity by Gordon Fee and/or Gerald Hawthorne. Eugene Rogers (ed.), The Holy Spirit: Classic and Contemporary Readings is a nice anthology of a range of primary texts. Modern systematic theologians all deal with it, including J. Moltmann Spirit of Life and W. Pennenberg in vol. 3 of his Systematic Theology.