(17 votes, average: 4.71 out of 5)
Loading...Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God or a very human book with all the problems that normally entails? For me, realizing that we don’t have the Bible in its original form was important to my thinking as I moved away believing the Bible had come straight to us from God.
I’ve been talking about all this as background to my book Misquoting Jesus (Harper, 2005). In the following excerpt I begin to explain the wide-ranging implications of my new way for understanding the New Testament.
My previous post ended with my realization, as stated in my book, that “there are more variations in the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament.” Lots and lots of conservative Christian scholars have maligned me putting it this way, even though they know it’s true. They just think it’s too radical. Little do they know (until I inform them) that the phrase came to me from the textual scholar they adore above all others, my mentor Bruce Metzger, who used to say it all the time.
Moreover, most of them don’t pay attention to my very next sentence in my book, which may as well not exist as far as they are concerned. I start there here: BUT…
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!
Excellent series, Professor. It’s hard to realize that Misquoting Jesus has been out almost 25y and I’ve been reading your subsequent books.
Your blog has been a great idea and the programs with Meghan outstanding.
And all the monies raised has gone to the needy.
Congratulations and thanks.
“Many of these authors no doubt felt they were inspired by God to say what they did”
Is Paul included in the list?
“ For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We DESTROY ARGUMENTS and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought CAPTIVE TO OBEY CRIST, being ready to PUNISH EVERY DISOBEDIENCE, when your obedience is COMPLETE”
(2 Corinthians 10:4-10)
He knew what he was doing, just as any other cult leader.
Yes,
Jesus knew what he was doing,he was performing false miracles to impersonate the Messiah and engaging in false charity to deceive money.He knew he was a cult leader.
And Paul knew the truth about Jesus and knew what he was doing：he was continuing Jesus’ cult business with the aim of continuing to engage in false charity to cheat money.
The early authors of the New Testament knew what they were doing, what they were saying, and how they should say it.For example, he said he wrote these scriptures (lies) under God’s revelation, just like Paul’s letters.
I agree regarding Paul; I consider him a deceiver and a cheater, just like many modern preachers and cult leaders.
I do not believe in the miracle-working Jesus depicted in the Gospels—I think that was made up. The historical Jesus was most likely a kind of rebel who fought against Roman power, which explains why his ‘disciples’ resisted Jesus’ arrest with swords in Gethsemane. Paul was a strong supporter of Roman rule, so he remained silent about Jesus’ real deeds and sayings that fitted well in politically turbulent Judea but not in the pacified senatorial provinces of Macedonia, Achaia, and Asia.
As for the ‘early authors’ of the NT, I see no evidence that they claimed to have “written these scriptures (lies) under God’s revelation,” except in the case of John of Patmos. However, I think they made up most of their stories to fit their theological and ecclesiological agendas.
Jesus was just a selfish cult leader whose purpose was to impersonate the Messiah to deceive money. Resisting Rome should not be what he wanted to do.
At that time, Jews generally believed that the Messiah would come soon and liberate Israel from Roman rule, so resisting Rome was the true Messiah’s job. Jesus knew very well that he was not the true Messiah. He claimed to be the Messiah only for the purpose of deceiving money with false charity, so he should never do anything for the true Messiah.
Jesus’ disciples held swords not because Jesus wanted to rebel against Rome, but because Jesus’ team was a criminal gang.
The early authors of the New Testament had no theological agenda, they only had an agenda of how to expand their business, and they clearly knew that they had no faith, only business.
The early authors of the New Testament knew they were running a cult, and if any author did not know this, it proved that he was not qualified as an early author.
I do not think Jesus presented himself as a messiah during his lifetime, nor do I see any evidence that ‘Jesus’ team was a criminal gang,’ although I do think they were not the peace-and-love fellows depicted in the Gospels until Jesus’ arrest in Gethsemane.
Mark made a gruesome mistake by telling of the disciples’ initially violent reaction, cutting the high priest’s servant’s ear (Mark 14:47). Luke tried to soften the scene by healing the ear (Luke 22:51), and to justify the fact that the disciples were armed, he made up a story (Luke 22:36-37) to leave the reader with the impression that those arms were introduced just hours before the arrest .
Although I agree that ‘The early authors of the New Testament knew they were running a cult,’ that does not mean they had no theological agendas. I do not think all early church leaders were deceivers; that explains why Paul’s letters were transmitted even when they explicitly say things like 2 Cor 10:4-10. Those who copied these letters (2 Cor) did not fully appreciate that Paul’s intention with his apocalyptic cult was to put his followers under mental bondage.
Jesus explained to people the contents about him in the Old Testament. He was claiming or implying that he is the Messiah.
The Jesus’ team performed false miracles, engaged in false charity to deceive money, and threatened Judas to confess before Jesus’ death, and executed Judas to vent their anger after Jesus’ death. So I conclude from these actions that the Jesus’ team was a criminal gang.
I agree with your later contents. Early New Testament authors should also have some theological agendas, and early church leaders were not all deceivers.
Because from the spread of cults around us now, we can know that there are not only cult scammers who are enthusiastic about cults, but also more enthusiastic people who are deceived by cults.
These more enthusiastic victims of cult deception can also become early authors of the New Testament due to their religious passions. These more enthusiastic victims of cult deception should also devoutly hold theological meetings with cult swindlers to discuss the theological issues that these more enthusiastic people are concerned about.
So the statement that ‘all the early New Testament authors knew they were running a cult’ should be incorrect, as some of the earliest authors were aware of it, while more zealous victims who joined later may not be aware of it.
Have you read the Didache? It is arguably the earliest non-canonical Christian work.
“Let every APOSTLE who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he must not remain more than one day, or two … If he stays three days, he is a FALSE PROPHET. And when the apostle GOES AWAY, let him take NOTHING BUT BREAD …. If he asks for money, he is a FALSE PROPHET” (Didache 11:4-6).
“Welcome anyone coming in the name of the Lord… but then, TEST THEM and USE YOUR DISCRETION … If he wants to stay with you, and IS A CRAFTSMAN, let him work for his living. But if he has no trade, use your judgment in providing for him; for a Christian should not live idle in your midst. If he is dissatisfied with this sort of arrangement, he is a CHRIST PEDDLER. WATCH that you KEEP AWAY from SUCH PEOPLE.” (Didache 12:1-5).
So early Christians were worried about economic exploitation by itinerant apostles. I do not consider the very early Christian movement as a cult of deceivers who wanted to cheat people for money.
But ironically, it was from one of those FALSE PROPHETS and CHRIST PEDDLERS that we have the canonical earliest Christian works, that is, Paul’s letters.
Paul was one of those the Didache warns about. Knowing the rules, he presented himself to the Thessalonians as a CRAFTSMAN who worked for his living (1 Thess 2:9), but in fact, he was a FALSE PROPHET and CHRIST PEDDLER who lived on the money he received from the churches he had previously founded (Phil 4:16). He also asked the churches he visited to pay for his next trip (2 Cor 1:16), even when they were churches not founded by him (Rom 15:24).
I think Paul was the exception , not the rule, but the wolves prevailed over the shepherds. As always.
About ‘Jesus’ team was a criminal gang’ I think you rely too much in the gospels for your conclusions…
I am the author of ‘Doomsday for Jesus: True Messiah Judges Scammer Jesus’, and my conclusion is based on my own research:
The Jesus team performed false miracles, impersonated the Messiah, and engaged in false charity to deceive money.
When Jesus performed false miracles, he knew clearly that he was not the true Messiah, but just a scammer. The Jesus team was also well aware that they were just a group of scammers.
A gang that ran a cult to cheat money was certainly a criminal gang, so they all fled in panic after Jesus was captured.
I did not author any book about Jesus, but I have my own ideas, also based on my research.
Regarding Jesus’s alleged miracles, take a look at:
https://ehrmanblog.org/the-miracles-of-the-emperor-vespasian-a-platinum-post-by-ryan-fleming/
Not only the article, but also the comments, particularly those by Kohanski—his proposition of Scenario F is the one I agree with the most.
I have looked at your link’s post and I don’t think there is a definitive answer to this question
How do you define a ‘ true’ miracle using historical/scientific methods?
“It is written” and rewritten and rewritten and…
Yep!
I don’t think I’ve read ‘Misquoting Jesus’. I did read ‘Jesus Interrupted’. That is the one that ‘broke the camels back’ for me. That is the moment that started the deconstruction of all my beliefs. I did read a couple of your other books and watched your YouTube debates after that. Thank you for your invaluable contribution to helping us better understand the ‘book’. I’m not sure where ‘Jesus Interrupted’ came in the line up of your books but how do you compare your thoughts and reasons for writing ‘Jesus Interrupted’ with ‘Misquoting Jesus’? I get the feeling that they must be very similar.
The books are not on the same topic at all, but the motivation for them was the same, to show what biblical scholars have come to know based on their research that calls into question many of the traditional views about the Bible.
Dr. Ehrman
There is a flood account older than the Noah flood account.
Irving Finkel concluded, “the iconic story of the Flood, Noah, and the Ark as we know it today certainly originated in the landscape of ancient Mesopotamia, modern Iraq.” Linguistic parallels between Noah’s and Atrahasis’ arks have also been noted.
Food at Ur – 3,500 BCE
2 Foods at Kish – 3,000 to 2,900 BCE and 2,600 BCE
Sharuppak flood 2950 to 2850 BCE
As a historian, have you written about the Mesopotamian floods [Eridu Genesis – The Flood Tablet from the Epic of Gilgamesh (Atrahasis used to fill in the gaps)]
Have you written about the Ancient Greek flood in the story of Deucalion (son of Prometheus) and Pyrrha?
The Great Courses has a course called Creation Stores of the Ancient World that speaks about the Atrahasis account, but not Zeus.
Jesus would have to be tied to the original account, the moral of the story, and the correct God.
Thank you.
I’ve written about Gilgamesh (in my book Heaven and Hell) and its similarities to the Hebrew Bible (also some of my courses talk about it).
Why is it so important that the text is the literal inerrant word of god to some? Seems there’s room to accept the text as is, however imperfect and still maintain a strong faith if you choose to do so.
Your long journey into and out of a popular Christian theology could have been much shorter. If Thomas Jefferson went through such a journey, then it seems to have been quite brief and “easy to separate” for him. He writes:
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
–Thomas Jefferson
Bart, in looking back at your life, why do you think you were sucked into the type of religion that has had such a profound effect on the whole direction of your life? Why do you think others also get sucked into it?
I don’t see myself as having been sucked into it; I was born and raised Christian and my move to evangelicalism was a fairly natural transition to what I then saw as a more “serious” form of the faith. For me the draw wsa largely the sense that I was now more fully committed to God and on the firm side of truth.
Thanks once again Prof Ehrman for your unwavering honestly about your own journey.
From my own past evangelical days (daze?) I recall hearing the smug sneers about Catholic & Orthodox authority via “The Church teaches . . .” in favour of the only true evangelical / fundamentalist authority & mantra of “The Bible teaches . . .”. However, when I now assert that the Bible as such, as a Church curated collection of writings, is the ultimate “The Church says . . .”, evangelical-types do not like it nor have they countered it. Nothing got in the 66 that didn’t pass through the lens of loudest voices in the Church of that time??
So, Prof Ehrman, if you were to channel your former fundamentalist self, how would you have responded to my (heretical?) claim that what we call the Bible is supremely a creation of the Church itself & that there is not much difference to “The Church teaches . . .” parroted by others?
I would have said that the Spirit of God guided the process of the canonization of Scripture, because God had chosen to reveal himself in Scripture to guide his people. But the church was filled with mere flawed humans who did not have a direct revelation from God.
disabledupes{b47093db5398836b665441b0bbcccd8f}disabledupes
Thankyou, and as I expected. So it IS entirely by faith in the Church itself and without any biblical basis (which would only have been circular reasoning anyway, had anyone tried that line of argument). The psychology of belief & WHY people believe what they believe is fascinating – and again another topic that I find evangelical-types are very uncomfortable facing up to.
Hi Bart,
What do you think about Jesus hiding in the Gospels?
People say as an argument that he knew his time hasn’t come. How do you respond to that?
I”m not sure what passage(s) you’re thinking of.
I’m referring to John 8:59 NRSV
[59] So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.
Sorry — now I don’t know what you’re asking about it (and either will readers). If you wnat to ask about a specific passage you need to give the passage and the question all in the same post or we can’t follow your thinking.
Immersed in a strict fundamentalist sect from birth I believed in the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. As time went on, I began to question that belief but still hung on, in some fashion at least, to the Christian faith. Fortunately stumbling across the Bart Ehrman blog late in life, my interest in the Bible, the New Testament in particular, was renewed. I now look at the New Testament, not as the inspired word of the Almighty but rather a somewhat fuzzy window into the life of this extraordinary historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth. Born in obscurity in modest circumstances, executed in a tortuous, humiliating manner at a fairly young age, he fought no battles, conquered no territory, established no empire. Yet, the memory of him, his teachings, and his death literally changed the world, I think it’s fair to say, like nothing else before or since. “The Triumph of Christianity” lays out a compelling explanation of how and why that happened. Still, I can’t help but wonder if there’s something deeper involved here, something, dare I say supernatural perhaps? Don’t know, but it’s fun to think about.
“What if the book you take as giving you God’s words instead contains human words?”
This reminds me of a related question I’ve wondered about for some time. There are those who believe the Bible contains the words of God, and Bart has shown there are serious problems with that. There are those who believe that Hebrew is God’s language, even though the historical linguists tell us it is only a dialect of Canaanite, with a long history of development. And there are those who believe the Aramaic script is God’s script, even though the paleographers tell us the ancient Hebrews used the paleo-Hebrew script (which was actually the Phoenician script, and derived from the proto-Canaanite script) until the Babylonian exile. But this brings up a deeper question: Why would a monotheistic god even have a language? Whom else was there to talk to? And why would he even have a script? There was no one else to write to, and it’s not like he would have needed to take notes on anything.
I have wondered if this issue has ever been considered by the fundamentalists or the textual critics.
In some ways it is the questoin that led to the field of modern linguistics, as (seriously) philological scholars tried to figure out what language they spoke in the garden of Eden. Hebrew? Sanskrit?
A less serious observation – paintings and other depictions of Moses with the ten commandments usually show them written in the Aramaic script, which is quite anachronistic. If Moses had written copies, whether on stone or on papyrus, they would have been written with the paleo-Hebrew/Phoenician script.
Which earlier creation myth do you choose, as a historian?
The Big Bang.
I take it your response here is tongue in cheek, right.
Not sure that the “big bang” understanding of the initial expansion of our known universe is regarded as a myth. At least not in the same sense as when we use myth in “creation myth.”
Yes, “myth” is a complicated term. In ancient Greek it meant something like “story that can help us make sense of our world and our place in it.” It didn’t have to be a *fiction* necessarily.
Paul was a Roman citizen of course to begin with, intelligent, probably at the Sanhedrin. A Jew as well, a religion accepted by the Empire as a true religion, not a cult. Jesus, or Yeshua in the language of his time, was a true descendent of David and considered by the people of Judah to be a more legitimate Messiah, or savior king, than Herod. Herod was a friend of Rome but also tried to be popular with the people, by “rebuilding” the temple.
Jesus was welcomed into Jerusalem one year on Palm Sunday, riding a donkey and people proclaiming him their Messiah. When Pilate asked him if he was a King of the Jews, he answered by saying “Who do you say I am? or You say that I am.” And Pilate was authorized to execute capital punishment for sedition. Jesus sweated blood which only happens in extreme anxiety cases from capillaries busting. Peter had a knife probably, the word for knife and sword are similar in Aramaic. A sword would be really heavy to carry and too expensive for a fisherman rabbi.
“ A sword would be really heavy to carry and too expensive for a fisherman rabbi.”
—————————————————-
Jesus’ team was so wealthy that they didn’t care about wasting an extremely expensive bottle of perfume.
“And Pilate was authorized to execute capital punishment for sedition.”
—————————————————–
The charge of inciting rebellion was not the real reason why Jesus was sentenced to death. Otherwise, Pilate would not have told the Jews that he believed Jesus did not have a serious crime that should be executed.
Misquoting Jesus was the first book I read of yours!!! Man was I hooked, right?
Dr. Ehrman, I figured out the 430 years of Israelites in Egypt!
Galatians — Paul of all people — says this time starts from Abraham’s divine commission:
• 1750 BCE is the recorded date of shepherds successfully sacking Ur — as brigands, this could merit a commission to colonize Canaan from the “Good God” Yakbim’s dynasty (yep, Semetic name) who scholarly consensus has colonizing Canaan. Yakbim founded the royal palace city of Avaris in Egypt within the Land of Goshen.
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/2017-02-06/ty-article-magazine/.premium/the-legend-of-the-amorites/0000017f-e3b2-d9aa-afff-fbfa042f0000
• 1320 BCE is the final abandonment of Avaris with the epic showdown of Pharaoh Ay and God-King Horemheb!
430 years.
Ay does *not* claim God-king status — he does not claim Horus or Seth titulary, he merely claims legitimacy through care-taking Tut.
•Horemheb *claims* God-King status, and outranked Thutmose the Overseer of Foreigners and Masons, who has no tomb found, even desecrated — despite being of extremely high status. Horemheb’s proud artwork has him disciplining Asiatics and he replaces Ay/Akhenaten’s vassals in Canaan — perhaps with the Habirus that they were writing Akhenaten about.
I definitely was helped by your great mind in figuring this out.
“Bible is not this kind of inerrant guide to our lives:”
I LOVE it when folks tell me to just open the Bible & you will know how to live!
Right figuring it out in a commonly confusing paradoxical anthology? What they hear is what the preachers spout. I heard that [not the Holy Spirit]!
Zhongqing Zhu your allegations on St Paul would explain why he has no personal witness or his friends, neighbors & Gamaliel’s accounting of Jesus’ resurrection weekend, etc.