For just about all of my undergraduate classes, I begin the semester, on the first day, after explaining the course, by giving students a pop quiz. In my New Testament classes, students are often surprised at how little they know. “Hey, I went to Sunday School my entire life! Why don’t I know this stuff?” Yeah, good question.
But this semester, as I indicated in my previous post, I’m teaching a course on “The Birth of Christianity,” which focuses on the period just after the New Testament up through Constantine. For *this* class students come in *knowing* that they don’t know much of anything. No matter: I give them a quiz anyway! (It’s not graded.)
Since I haven’t taught the class in 25 years, I had to come up with a new quiz (having no idea if I even did one before) . Here it is. How well can you do? I’ll be discussing answers in subsequent posts (I give the quiz, in part, to discuss the answers with students as a way of introducing them to some basic information that we’ll be covering during the semester)
POP QUIZ
1. About when did Jesus die? About when was the first Gospel written? About when did someone indicate that our current 27 books were the New Testament?
2. About how many Christians (roughly!) would have been in the world in 100 CE?
Do you want to keep reading the quiz? Join the blog! The small membership fee goes entirely to those in need. You win, they win, the blog wins, the universe wins. Hey, no one loses. Join! Click here for membership options
Oooo, some trick questions. No 9. Catholics would say that Peter was the first Pope but this is debatable. There’s a case to be made that James, Jesus’s brother, was the first Pope. For 11. (What is the doctrine of the Trinity?) do some students answer: ‘How long have you got? 🙂
I use the qeustion to explain that the earliest church in Rome didn’t have a “pope” and to explain where the word and idea of “pope” came from.
Wasn’t the Copts (Egyptians) the first ones who called their archbishop Pope?
I don’t know. It’s not a Coptic word though.
Have you done a post on Peter and Rome?
For example, what is the historical evidence that Peter started the Church there? Paul doesn’t mention him at all in Romans.
Is there any historical evidence (i.e. NOT tradition) that he was martyred there or even that he went to Rome at all?
Best wishes.
Love the new blog BTW.
I couldn’t remember. But yup. https://ehrmanblog.org/peter-first-bishop-pope-in-rome/ I think I’ll repost it!
Thanks Bart, great posts.
I would still be interested to know if there is any historical evidence to suggest that it was likely that Peter was ever in Rome, let alone it being deemed a historical fact.
All we have are later legends taht place him there, usually in order to show his importance to the establishment of the church in Rome. I don’t think there’s firm evidence one way or the other.
If there is no evidence (other than legends, as you suggest) wouldn’t that mean critical scholars don’t accept that it is true?
And of course, they won’t deem it to be false either. In other words, would scholars give any credence to unsupported legends?
Historians treat every story that comes down to us from antiquity in the same way. They examine it carefully to see if it appears to relate historical reality and if not, decide just how legendary it is. Even if it is legendary, it may have elements of historical truth. In this case, scholars have debates about whether it’s plausible that Peter was in Rome or not; apart from those with religious reasons to think so, though, I don’t know of any who actually thinks that Peter was the first leader of the Roman church.
Awesome pop quiz! Hope your joyful today Dr. Ehrman. 😊
The only one that really stumped me was #6 – How many of Jesus’ earliest followers, right after his death, were Jews?
I’m guessing (?) you are implying that the answer is “All of them”. But do we really know for sure Jesus didn’t have any gentile followers? Maybe some wandered down from Sepphoris one weekend, caught Jesus speaking by the Sea of Galilee and started to follow him. A month later he was crucified. They hadn’t converted to become Jewish yet, but were followers nonetheless. Okay, no evidence for this, but not totally implausible, is it? Are we certain the New Testament lines about Jesus having gentile followers don’t go back to the historical Jesus?
Right after his death the followers who came to believe he had been raised were his disciples who came with him to Jerusalem from Galilee, and a handful of women, in order to celebrate the passover. I’d say all of those were certain Jews. It’s *possible*, as you say, that some gentiles followed him, but since his message was all about how Jews had to return to their Jewish god by following the Jewish Scriptures, etc., its hard to see that there’d be gentiles among them. Maybe? But at least there’s no mention of them….
There was DEFINITELY zero non Jews as followers of Galilean Yeshua (Jesus).
1- If his message was universal, a mission to non Jews would have been instructed by him before his execution.
2- The story of Peter’s vision about mingling with non Jews wouldn’t have been developed and propagated by Saul Paul’s companions.
3- Yeshua’s followers to other cities wouldn’t have fled because of persecution but rather to preach to all nations of the world.
4- Those followers would have preached to everyone not talking only within Jewish gathering.
5- Yeshua’s Followers accompanying Peter would have had table communion with non Jews.
6- Yeshua’s Followers wouldn’t have propagated the necessities to follow Jewish laws in order to be able to accept Yeshua as the Mashiach (Messiah).
7- Clear instructions in the gospels on Yeshua’s lips from the BEGINNING of his ministry to indicate the global perspective of his teachings not as ADD ON at the end of Mark & his corroborator Matthew.
8- Such instructions would have nullified Jerusalem council.
9- It wouldn’t have been only Saul Paul who was an outsider and a Greco-Roman Jewish hybrid that preached such doctrine but rather the 11 turned 12 Authentic disciples who would have written such universality.
Johngeorgie,
Interesting points. From a theological perspective, I’d propose that Paul indicated that the expansion/augmentation of the Abrahamic Covenant was a secret ‘mystery’ revealed exclusively to him and the apostles. And this integration of the Gentiles into the covenant was made possible by spiritual union with Christ. Paul’s explanation goes like this: Since Christ is the quintessential Son of Abraham, those who are ‘In Christ’ become recipients of the blessings of Abraham. And, this mystical union with Christ was only made possible by the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Bang on.
It is a human product from the creative imagination of a certain eloquent individual (Saul Paul).
You have to see it from outside the box.
The infinite intelligence (Logos) missed to instruct his close disciples during his earthly life with practical hands on examples that his message is not intended for a couple million people (Jews) but rather to the 500 millions which made the human race at the time.
Here is a contemporary example.
Dr.Ehrman instructs his pupils that his books/ideas are valuable for the education of 2% of American undergraduates but then comes one from England who only heard about Dr. Ehrman from a word of mouth & correct his pupils that the ideas/books are intended for the 100% & it is intended to have been scaled globally.
It is an evidence that Dr.Ehrman couldn’t see beyond the 2%.
& SO WAS the Galilean Yeshua.
Period.
There are a few characters who weren’t in the Jesus movement but were praised for their faith. The woman who touched Jesus’s robe to get healed and the centurion who asked for healing for his servant. Weren’t they non-Jews?
Yes, the centurion was a non-Jew. The woman appears to have been a Jew. But the question isn’t about which people were said to have associated with Jesus during his public ministry, but who believed in him immediately after his death (well, soon after — i.e., once they came to think he had been raised). And that would have been only the tiny group of followrs who had been with him in Jerusalem, all of them Jews.
1a) 30 CE 1b) 80 CE 1c) 4th century CE
2a) 100 to 1,000
3) A “god”? The Philippans hymn suggest that it’s very old, from before 40 CE. Yahweh and not just “a god”? 3rd century CE.
4) Non-monotheist
5) Exclusivity (you can’t worship anyone else); Monotheism (all other Gods are false); written tradition.
6) All of them.
7) “One who knows”. The root is gnosis which means “wisdom” or “knowledge” of the more esoteric kind.
8) Gospel of Judas, Child Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Thomas
9) We don’t know, but tradition says Peter. The *best* pope is Joan, who allegedly gave birth during a holy procession.
10) “Heresy” means choice, specifically choosing the wrong doctrine. “Orthodoxy” means right teaching.
11) Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are three persons but one God, all co-equal.
12) Constantine. He also murdered most of his family, but he’s still a saint.
How many points do I get?
You passed. But you still need to take the course. 🙂
If you do more than pass you have studied too much.
I’ve never believed in studying too much….
But according to Festus, too much studying drives you mad… 😉
As some liked to say in my Navy days, “if the minimum wasn’t good enough, it wouldn’t be the minimum.”
6. How many of Jesus’ earliest followers, right after his death, were Jews?
My answer is…. all of them ! Am I right???
9. Who was the first pope?
I think the catholic answer would be Peter, mine would be Clement but no so sure !
Question to Bart:
Do you think Peter ever reached Rome?
6. Yup. 9. The term pope didn’t come about for a long time, and early on there wasn’t a single leader in Rome. The early popes were thought to be “popes” only in retrospect.
Hmmm. Did “Bishop of Rome” ever mean just that without the distinction of first among other or all bishops?
So being dragged to an Episcopal church years ago I amused myself with their Book Of Common Prayer which had a section on their tenants of faith followed by the earlier Anglican version. Loved the entry in thatversion near the end which said … The Bishop of Rome shall hold no sway in this Realm of England! Ahh. Such historical language!
Yup.
1. 30ce 60ce, 4th century.
2. IDK a figure but not many, 3. 90s
4. hill people
5. doctine, 1 god, exclusive
6. all
7. Knowledge
8. Proto James, gospel of light, Phillip
9. No pope
10. Choice & right belief
11. 3 distinct persons in one essence of God.
12.Theodosius
I think “Pope” could not have come into common usage until after the “Robber Synod” of Ephesus and Council of Chalcedon.
Thanks a lot but ….what about Peter in Rome? I think he never was there, what is the scholarly view about it?
And Paul? I have the bizarre “theory” that Paul never reached Rome, he died in prison in Ephesus and Philemon/Ephesians/Colossians were written in those final days, the latest two being forged by his own followers when he finally died because Paul was very well known in Asia (province) and they continued “using” his name … does any scholar suggest something like this?
A lot of scholars probably think he did come to Rome, but he would not have started the church there. Our first evidence of it is Paul’s letter to the Romans, where he greets those he knows there — but he does not mention Peter. I myself am not sure if Peter ever made it to Rome, though the legendary tradition made a big deal of his activities there. These accounts don’t start appearing until th eend of the second century though. My sense ist ath most scholars are pretty sure Paul made it to Rome. The author of Acts certainly says so.
Why would Peter have gone to Rome anyways? Its clear from Paul’s letters than Peter was traveling outside of Jerusalem, but why go all the way to Rome? Seems like a long and dangerous journey especially for a poor Jew from the backwaters of Judea.
Rome had one of the largest Jewish communities in the empire; if you want to reach a lot of Jews, it’s the obvious place.
In 2 Peter 1 “του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου” isn’t the only to understand this is “Jesus Christ our god and savior”?
Otherwise if its split in two the “our” only applies to God and not to the savior Jesus christ.
Ah, if that were the only way to understand it, everyone would understand it that way. (note the article is not repeated with the second substantive; even if it were, KAI can be additive instead of adverbial.
But 2 Peter also ends with “του κυριου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου” and no one would ever translate it as anything other than “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”.
του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου
του κυριου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου
I can’t remember — do you read Greek? The next word AUTOi in the conclusion shows he seems to be speaking in that case of one person, not two. Moreover, it’s precisely the problem. NT authors frequently uses KURIOS of Christ, and so it’s natural to think he is doing so here. they never unambiguously uses THEOS, and so it is not natural. I’m not AGAINST the author of 2 Peter doing so, at all. I just don’t think it’s a slam dunk.
Yes NT authors usually don’t use THEOS unambiguously about christ – but here I think it is unambiguous.
The very next verse 2 Peter 1:2 shows how the author would write it when he wants to distinguish between God and Jesus
του θεου και ιησου του κυριου ημων – God and Jesus our Lord.
so verse 1 should have been written as – του θεου και ιησου χριστου σωτηρος ημων
I think the juxtaposition of verse 1 and verse 2 is supposed to indicate the strangeness of whats being said.
Also, it’s pretty evident 2 Peter was pseudographic no? And it’s largely copied from either Jude or another source. Also, since it refers to Paul’s letters as ‘Scripture’ (among other things) therefore, most likely written at a much later date.
Aren´t you afraid that by giving this away you´ll actually have to buy a dinner this time, professor? 🙂
Think I”m safe…
Probably because your southern evangelical students would never join an agnostic atheists blog – even if it’s their professor?
Actually, some of them are on it!
Trick question – #9?
It could be interpreted early as επισκοπος, and building a church upon this πετρα would make zero sense to Peter. The “Letter of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth,” needs to be the decisive document. Catholics falsely represent it as Peters authoritative basis by Clement. But, the letter is written in the name of the Roman community, not of its bishop, and is an appeal from one church to another. It states that Paul came to Rome and was martyred there, but it does not say that Peter ever came to Rome, or died there. At the end of the century the Roman community was still one amongst many and claimed no authority. Nor is there recognition of such authority in the letters of Ignatius and Irenaeus. Indeed, as the Church was torn by the Gnostic controversy, the fact that no Eastern bishop made the least appeal to Rome to settle it plainly shows that until near the end of the second century, Rome did not even claim any authority.
So….a legend in his own mind (and pal of Marcia) – Bishop Victor (despite those pesky Asia Minor Bishops’ objections)
I believe in one of your GC lectures you said you put trick questions in like “Who wrote the Book of Andrew?”
I also won a friendly argument with someone who swore there was no book of Joel. I mean, I know it’s easy to miss if you’re just flipping through the OT, but who does that?
It would also be great if you could put this post up as a test or survey (besides just putting our answers in the comments) just to see how we lot would do– without cheating and looking things up of course because we all know what happens to those who cheat!
I’ve been thinking about the fact that in the synoptics, at the last supper, Jesus tells the group to drink his blood/wine. Furthermore, unlike the instruction to eat his body/bread, he relates drinking the blood to the new covenant. I’d appreciate some (brief) feedback about the following interpretation.
Jesus’s instruction to eat his body seems to me to be modeled (at least in part) on Jewish animal sacrifice for atonement for sin. As part of the sacrifice, the animal’s flesh was eaten, hence the instruction to eat Jesus’s body/flesh. He was about to be sacrificed in atonement for all sin. However, Jews did not consume the blood, which represented life, which belonged to God alone. So there my model breaks down.
My idea is that drinking the blood had an import similar to the temple’s curtain being torn in two during the crucifixion. It signified the breaking down of barriers between God and humanity, a closer relationship, and a sharing in the divine life (represented by the blood). This was at least part of the new covenant. And covenants were normally/often ratified with animal blood, weren’t they?
Bread: yeah, good observation. Blood: I’m not sure. I’ve thought it may involve “life is in the blood,” and/or “ingesting the blood of teh Passover, i.e., salvation” My sense is that the early Christians commemorated Jesus’ death by remembering his last meal, and that “eating adn drinking” came to mean “partaking of” and that bread and blood were the obvious corollaries of body and blood. But it’s a tricky busines, as you note.
No trick.
As Eisenman has thoroughly explained, Bart, Paul was mocking Essene blood purity observances. It was not just a guess. He connects the two extensively. If scholars don’t think he is right, it’s usually because they’re true believers.
I think you should read “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians” and “James the Brother of Jesus” again.
RIght! I”m not saying that the Christian view of the Lord’s Supper reflected a traditional (or “accurate”) view of the Jewish Passover feast. It was their *reinterpretation* of it, in sacrificial terms, so that the traditional symbolism came to take on new significance with the death of Jesus, who now brought salvation not from a foreign oppressor but from sin, and whose sacrifice was appropriated by “consuming” it to make it part of oneself.
RIght! I”m not saying that the Christian view of the Lord’s Supper reflected a traditional (or “accurate”) view of the Jewish Passover feast. It was their *reinterpretation* of it, in sacrificial terms, so that the traditional symbolism came to take on new significance with the death of Jesus, who now brought salvation not from a foreign oppressor but from sin, and whose sacrifice was appropriated by “consuming” it to make it part of oneself.
Based on your expertise in early Christianity, I’m wondering if you can shed any light–or suggest some things to consider–with regard to the American Catholic Church’s current problems convincing two thirds of American Catholics that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist.
I can’t recall for sure but I think you doubt the historicity of Jesus saying the bread and wine were his body and blood. But what were the synoptic writers (and even John in a different context) trying to convey to their listeners? What did they mean?
The major controversy seems to be whether Jesus’s words were meant to be symbolic or literal. In support of the Church’s position, the plain, literal words of the synoptic gospels seem to indicate some kind of important transformation of the bread and wine. But maybe speech like this was characteristic of Jesus and the gospel writers and meant to be symbolic.
I doubt you want to get in the middle of this controversy. And any resolution involves more than scriptural interpretation. But that seems like a good place to start.
I’m pretty sure the Synoptics (or Paul in 1 Cor. 11) were not thinking literally. They were commemorating his death and consuming bread and wine meant partaking in the salvation her brought. Transubstantiation was a much alter doctrine.
Also, Dr Ehrman, would Jesus’ early followers, as practicing Jews, have found even the hint of cannibalism in Jesus’s instructions to eat his body and drink his blood deeply offensive?
No, there is no record of that. They were rather forcefully opposed to such a view.
Just thinking out loud here… Since 1 Cor 11 was written only 20 years after Christ’s death, wouldn’t that support the idea that Jesus actually said those words regarding the last supper? And also we have two sources (synoptics and Paul) that confirm those words.
20 years is still a lot of time. But, Paul says he received Jesus’ words “from the Lord” but I’m supposing it had to be from the disciples, no? So it seems likely to be from a direct eyewitness source.
It may have been from the disciples, but it’s not clear. In the early church (as in parts of Christianity today) people received a “word from the Lord” in various ways — for example, from prophecies made in worship services (Thus says the Lord….), from inner convictions (God has been speaking to me today), from traditions (“we know that the Lord once said…”) and from lots of other sources. (I had a professor in Bible college who like to say, “Are you disagreeing with me or with the Bible? Which is the same thing” ! I.e. he claimed that his view of things was the SAME as the view found in his particular interpretation of the Bible. Thus says the Lord!
Possibly. But we need to think carefully about it. If someone’s words are reported just 20 years later, does that suggest they probalby are accurate? Just think about our lives. Ever have someone misrepresent what you said on, say, the next day? Or what if someone quotes you a sentence from Obama’s second Inaugural address (which unlike the words of an ancient person, were actually recorded and be looked up): is it llikely the sentence is accurate because it was spoken so recently? The fact that we have both Mark and Paul certainly makes it more likely the words were historical (if we had just one source it’d be very difficult to show). But even that is not a slam dunk case, any more than the fact that dozens of people have reported to me that the Bible says: “God helps those who help themselves.” (If you see what I mean)
Good points. I do find it interesting how Paul used the Lukian “Do this in remembrance of me.” Makes me think Luke may have gotten it from Paul.
Luke was clearly in a Pauline community (since Paul is the hero of Acts), and my guess is that this is how they said it every week there. (He would have been the generation after Paul, at least)
You won’t believe this, but I think I really do know the answers to almost all of them, except for the approximate number of Christians in 100CE (if I had to guess, I would say something like 8 thousand)! And assuming, of course, that the correct answers to Q3 is “right away, when a couple of them had visions of him and thought he was resurrected by God”, and to the question how many of Jesus’s first followers were Jews is “all of them”.
By the way, you do indeed throw some curve balls over there, and I can imagine 90% of your students answering “Constantine” at Q15, anyone else than Peter as the first Pope, and of course 99% of them having absolutely no clue of what “Gnostic” means (if I was among your students, I would have an edge being Greek on that one 😉😂😂). Mr. Ehrman, I think you would have to buy me a dinner!
Actually, most of my students had no idea about either Constantine (they haven’t read the Da Vinci Code!) or Peter as pope. And a number of them as it did turn out, knew Gnostic. But a bunch of them have had religius Studies classes before.
Saw the Da Vinci Code mention and LOLed haha. Your lecture on that way back when is still one of my favorites
Nice quiz. Interesting course. (I have to get back to producing my udemy.com course.)
# # #
Steefen
A man is being baptized. Today I have begotten this man makes no biological sense. Today, when you decided to get baptized, I have turned that decision into giving you new life (begotten works in this sense).
Dr. Daniel Wallace
I have begotten you comes from Ps 2. It does not mean God adopted Jesus on the day of his baptism. It means this is the day I am making it known in public that you are the king, the Messiah.
Steefen
Tell us about the succession, then.
Who was rejected? Was a pharaoh type or a King Saul type rejected. Was Pontius Pilate rejected in the story? Was Emperor Tiberius rejected in the story?
What were his duties as king?
David designed a temple built by Solomon. King Herod the Great had architectural plans, what was King Jesus’ architectural plan?
Augustus Caesar and King Herod the Great had succession plans: kings have succession plans. What was Jesus’ succession plan?
Kings have military endeavors. What were Jesus’ military endeavors?
Day of enthronement? There was no crown or thrown on his baptism day.
Dr. Ehrman, is the baptism a declaration of kingship?
Yes, Luke’s version of the voice does quote Psalm 2. “Today I have begotten you” is very different from “Today I have declared that I begot you before” The voice says the former.
Prof. Bart D. Ehrman
Yes (the baptism is a declaration of kingship.)
Luke’s version of the voice does quote Psalm 2.
“Today I have begotten you” [at Ps 2] is very different from “Today I have declared that I begot you before.”
The voice says the former [Today I have begotten you.]
Steefen
Prof. Ehrman is saying Luke’s version is quoting Ps 2: 7.
I see an allusion with the phrase, You are my son, but I see that in Mark, Matt, and Luke.
Second, I have not yet found a translation of the Synoptic verses that say I have begotten you.
Luke Chapter 3, verse 22
And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”
Matthew Chapter 3, verse 17
And a voice came from the heavens, saying,
This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.
Mark Chapter 1, verse 11
And a voice came from the heavens,
You are my beloved son; with you I am well pleased.
Why not Mark and Matt quoting/alluding to Ps 2?
Is it only in Bezae but not English translations? (I looked at NAB, KJV, Young’s Literal, and NIV.)
Allow Ps 2: 7 to take precedence over Lk 3: 22, then Jesus is being enthroned at baptism?
Fun. How many pages so you give then to expound on their answer to number eleven?
They get about 15 seconds, max. Most of them don’t need that long. 🙂
They get about 15 seconds, max. 🙂
(4) The term pagan literally refers to those living out in the country. Similarly, heathen refers to those living out on the heath. In other words, rustic, unsophisticated, not knowing any better. Redneck, thus. It would be less dismissive to refer to their religious practices as ancestral or traditional.
As you probably know, it is deeply and hotly debated.
Without reading the other comments…
1. ~35 AD, ~70 AD, ~300 AD?!
2. 100,000?
3. Trick question – he’s the Messiah early, but the Trinity is a little later. ~80-100 AD (aka around the time of the writing of the gospel of John)?
4. Whatever the speaker wants, but “non-Christians, non-Jews, probably polytheistic”.
5. More inclusive of women, more respectful of service rather than rule, more focused on beliefs rather than practices (e.g. sacrifices & offerings vs. doctrine).
6. 98%? There’s a few token “Roman soldiers who believed” but they might be mythical.
7. Well, gnosis is knowledge, so “knowledge-y”?
8. Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas
9. Peter, allegedly, since 1 Peter claims it was written from “Babylon” = Rome, but I read Forged and know your views on how likely it was that Peter learned perfect Koine Greek and moved to Rome.
10. “Choice” vs. “correct belief” (or “straight belief” to be super literal, but match the mathematics use of “orthogonal”).
11. That God the Father, God the Son (=Jesus), and the Holy Spirit are all simultaneously God.
12. Someone after Constantine. (Beats me who.)
3. I think it would depend on how specific… Does the teaching that Jesus is the Son of God count? Or having a divine nature? Or the teaching that he is the physical representation/image of the Father? Or do you mean when was actually called ‘God’ like in John?
I guess it would also depend if someone believes in the Pauline authorship of 1 Tim. since the divinity of Christ is implied in 1 Ti 3:16.
Perhaps this is partly the point (for example, as an gateway to further discussion) but given how it’s phrased is the second part of question #1 (“About when was the first Gospel written?”) something of a trick —or at least an ambiguously-phrased— question?
That is, does “the first Gospel” mean “the earliest Gospel that appears in the NT” (i.e. Mark) or does it mean “the earliest Gospel of which we have evidence” (i.e. Q)?
(And if I wanted to be that smart-alecky guy in the back of the class, we could point out that it’s not that uncommon, even in scholarly writing, to use “the first Gospel” as a way of referring to its position in the NT, i.e. Matthew.)
I had to guess for most of them, but that was fun. Number 2… my guess 10,000… probably a bit off on that one, but, my Church history in Bible school… (35 years ago ) didn’t include most of this. It was very limited to what we needed to know to be good Lutherans. Now I am thinking a good read would be “Triumph of Christianity”… but I still have “Misquoting Jesus” ahead of that to read. And I am only half way through “Heaven and Hell”. But I did get “Jesus, Interrupted “read, and that was a great read.
Have fun with the class… look like some great material.
#12 is a bit of a trick. Constantine made Christian AN official religion in 313 CE. Theodosius made it THE official religion in 380 or thereabouts.
No, Constantine legalised it.
Same thing.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
I have heard a conservative pastor use Romans 1: 18-32 to critique the Democrat Party who advocate sexual freedom, right to abortion and gay marriage. Surely the Bible cannot be used to critique today’s politics like that? What is the historical context in which Paul is writing this verse?
Thank you!
If you look up “homosexuality” on the blog you’ll find a post or two on the passage. Paul is trying to show that “pagans” who rejected their knowledge of the one true God were punished by being turned into licentious reprobates. There is nothing about abortion in the passage and nothing about what we today would call “homosexuality.” It does, though, condemn same-sex sex acts. That’s not the same as homosexuality, though, which is an orientation. The ancient world knew nothing about orientation. (That pastor, by the way, probably allows women to go without head coverings in his church. Why is that? Paul condemns it!)
Thank you so much Dr Ehrman!! You are the best!
But in context, isn’t Paul trying to give an argument for the cause of immorality among Gentile pagan nations? According to Paul, pagans rejected the evidence of the reality of God as seen in the beauty of creation and ignorantly worshiped nature instead.
As a direct consequence, God angrily cursed the pagan nations with unnatural sexual desires, which, consequently, increases their judgment.
Homosexuality was unheard of among Jews of the time (at least publicly), so Paul seems to be giving his rationale on why it was so prevelant among Gentiles. He saw it as a curse.
What I don’t understand is why liberals feel impelled to prove that Paul isn’t really talking about homosexuality here. I feel like it’s almost a semantics game when we try to delineate between homosexual orgies and just homosexuality in general. It seems like it’s missing the forest for the trees. I could be wrong.
Paul wasn’t right all the time. And that’s okay. Why couldn’t he be wrong here as well?
My point is that “homosexuality” was unheard of by *everyone* in antiquity. I know it’s hard to get one’s mind around, but what WE mean by the term simply didn’t exist, since it depends on understandings of sexuality and orientation. No one thought that way in antiquity. They thought about sexual *acts* not orientation. And homosexual acts were just as common among Jews as eeryone else. I myself would have zero problem thinking that Paul condemned homosexuality and was simply mistaken about it. But what he has in mind is simply not what we have in mind. If you want to read up on this, there is a huge literature on it. You might start with Thomas Laqueur, Making Sex.
Fair enough. But it seems that Paul is implying that the “sinfulness” of these homosexual acts lies in the fact that they are “unnatural.” If so, wouldn’t the point be moot? According to Paul, the act is “shameful” because it’s unnatural. How would the context of these acts change their essential nature in Paul’s mind? Ie whether they are done in isolation or in the context of a loving mutual homosecual relationship?
Yes, it’s an important point. He did consider them “unnatural.” BUT (and this is a very big but) for him they were unnatural for reasons that we today do NOT think they are unnatural, and the reasons people today think of them as unnaturally are not the reasons he would have subscribed to. This is a very complicated topic and too much for a simple comment. It involves what people in Paul’s context thought were “natural” relations between men and women, men and men, and women and women. And these views they held are not at all what we today hold. Here’s an analogy: today most evangelical Christians agree that it is OK for women to attend church without a head covering; their thinking is that the REASON Paul opposed it is not one that is any longer applicable in our day and age. It is the same issue with Romans 1. The REASON Paul thinks that same sex sex is wrong is not one that we hold today.
Regarding my question about Jesus’s real presence in the Eucharist, I’m also wondering how his words (about the bread and wine being his body and blood) fit the context: both that of Jesus as a 1st century Jew; and that of the synoptic writers. Is that the sort of thing people might say in that time period? Is there precedent for those words or that idea in the OT or Apocrypha? How do they fit-if at all-into the ancient religious worldview?
I don’t think they make sense on the lips of Jesus, since they presuppose a doctrine of the substituionary atonement of his death, and I don’t think he was planning to be crucified, let alone crucified for the sins of others. For the NT authors they make perfect sense since, decades later, all of them thought that Jesus’ death did bring about salvation. The words would have seemed very odd, even troubling, to most Jews and pagans.
Dr Ehrman,
Amazing quiz….but undergrads/freshmen would be too young to appreciate wisdom and knowledge behind these question.
One question:
Why do religions have different Gods but the same Satan?
I’m not sure what you mean (by “different Gods” or “same Satan”); if you’re referring to the three major monotheistic religions, there are differences up and down the line, but Christianity and Islam both got their views of the divine from from forms of Judaism.
Dr Ehrman,
About your 3rd quiz question:
3. About when did Jesus’ followers first claim he was God?
What is your take on that? Did Paul believe Jesus was a god or The God?
Yes he did. As did Christians before him — as soon as they believed in the resurrection. I discuss this in my book How Jesus Became God, if you’re interested in seeing how it happened.
Can your course be audited online?
I’m afraid not. I teach it live.
It’s been a while since I read the Triumph of Christianity. I seem to recall that at the beginning you contrast the Roman/Classical ethos of domination with the Christian ethos of loving service. And that the change to the Christian ideal was hugely important in the history of Western/European civilization. Yet I don’t recall that ideal of loving service being a significant factor in converting the Roman empire.
I have no trouble believing the importance of other more “realistic” factors, eg, reputed miracles, exclusivity, etc. I try to avoid sentimentalism. However, it’s hard to accept that what many think of as the attractiveness of the Christian message, the ethos of loving service, the “humanity” of Christianity, played at best a minor rule in converting the empire.
Am I missing or misunderstanding something? Where in the book do you address this?
That’s right. Our sources do not indicate that the Christian ideology of service was a significant factor in making others convert. Certainly for those who were oppressed and downtrodden it may have been an attractive factor, as may have been other features of the religion. But for the most part people appear to have converted to this religion for the same reason they adhered to their old religions — to have access to divine sources of help for what they needed (and the Xns showed their God could provide these things better than others, by the great miracles of healing and helping he did.)
1. A) 30CE give or take a few years, B) 80CE more or less C) Origen of Alexandria so second to third century CE?
2. 10,000?
3. Some content in the letter of Paul can be interpreted that way.
4. Pagan means rustic,rural.
5. Exclusivity,Monotheism and the Tanakh because most of the Christians consider it to be from God.
6. All of them more or less.
7. Having knowledge, possessing knowledge
8. Gospel of Thomas,Gospel of Judas and Gospel of Barnabas (early modern gospel!)
9. Pope Gregory 1 I would say.
10. Heresy means choice, Orthodoxy means correct opinion, I think.
11. Can’t really
12. Emperor Theodosius 1 (Died 395CE)
Hi Dr. Ehrman!
Fun pop quiz – I feel fairly confident I’d pass with a B (if it were being graded).
Quick question that you’d probably be able to answer off the top of your head:
With what we know now of all the gospels (canonical and non), if our criteria for the N.T. were to include the most historically reliable accounts without regard to tradition or agreeing with other scripture, which gospels would include?
Thanks and look forward to the next post!
William
The ones we have are certainly the most historically reliable of all that survive. But in a sense that’s simply because they become even increasingly legendary with time. “Most” reliable does not necessarily mean “very” reliable!
“Yes, the centurion was a non-Jew.’
Given this *hekatontarchos* (hundred-ruler) is in Galilee and Galilee was not occupied by the Romans in this part of the first century, he is very unlikely to have been a Roman (assuming this story has any historical basis). So this is likely to have been an officer of one of Herod Antipas’ units. So he could have been a Greek-speaking Syrian non-Jew or he could have been … a Jew. In fact, the latter is much more likely overall.
Even the Roman units stationed in Judea were made up mostly of Syrians and Samaritans, given that they were cohorts of *auxilia* – Pilate was not high ranking enough to command legionaries. The higher officers of those cohorts would have been Romans, but down at the centurion level the rank would have been held by non-Roman locals.
When we see the translation “centurion” we think of Romans. But none of the centurions mentioned in the NT are likely to have been Romans. It’s entirely possible that if Jesus was brought before Pilate, that was the first time he’d ever laid eyes on an actual Roman in his life, contrary to the Hollywood depiction of Roman legionaries everywhere.
Yup, right. THe story is not historical. Jews were not in the Roman military (since, among other things, they wouldn’t fight on sabbath!). But I agree, JEsus would probably not have seen a Roman until his trip to Jerusalem. I’d assume he had seen them in the Temple in the week before he was arrested though.
POP QUIZ
1. About when did Jesus die? 33
About when was the first Gospel written?
70
About when did someone indicate that our current 27 books were the New Testament?
About 400
2. About 2,000
3. About 40 CE
4. Country bumpkin
5. 1. Exclusive commitment to one god.
2. Integration of religion with ethics.
3. Faithfulness to written scriptures.
6. Probably zero or fewer than half a dozen, if any
7. Belief that a select few can know they are selected for salvation and that they can secretly understand the signs that they are saved—saved to escape from this corrupt world created by a lesser renegade god—as opposed to others who are trapped in bodies of corruptible matter
8. Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Judas
Gospel of Mary Magdalene
9. Peter, supposedly
10. (Wrong) choice; straight teaching
11. Father Yahweh, Son Jesus the Christ, and Holy Spirit are 3 faces of 1 God
12. Jovian
Early Christianity was from the time Jesus died until AD70. That was early Christianity. What followed AD70 was an invention of Greek cultured pretenders who didn’t know that Jesus came for his own people, Israel, not them.
Is there a reason I can only see 2 questions, but the first question has several questions?
1. Around 30-34 CE. I believe Jesus is said to have been 30 at his death, but I also believe his year of birth was wrong, so it wasn’t year 0, but year 4. Or is it the other way around? That he was born 4 BCE?
2. Around 70 CE is the earliest I believe (or possibly 66 CE).
3. After the council of Nicea. I believe about 50 years after it that the first version of the bible was compiled from the various books floating around, so late 3rd century.
4. Dunno. But I guess >1000 and <5000. Or is this even a trick question? Were they even called Christians that early? Somewhere in the back of my mind a bell rings saying that it's until after 100 CE that they are being called Christians, so at 100 CE, there would technically be 0 Christian.
Don't see any more questions here.
Most of the time that is because your subscription has run out and needs to be renewed. Maybe check?
Hello Dr Ehrman,
Unrelated to the quiz but a question that’s been on my mind for some time.
Do you believe James and the other apostles believed the statement made in 1 Cor. 15:3, that Jesus was the Son of God who died for the sins of the world and if so what would ‘dying for the sins of others’ mean to them – was it in a way of substitutionary atonement or in a more straightforward sense of Jesus being killed because others were sinners? I guess what I’m trying to understand is whether or not James (+ the other apostles) and Paul had the same outlook on what happened on that cross apart from their differing views on matters of the Law. From Paul’s theological perspective it appears that the death of Jesus had to have happened, would James and the others hold to the same view or was it from their understanding a gross and unnecessary injustice (hence ‘dying for the sins of others’) which served no purpose in itself apart from establishing that Jesus was in fact the Messiah after their alleged visionary experiences.
There’s no way to know for certain, since we have only the reports of others from decades later. But it does appear that they must have thought something more than just that Jesus was (another) prophet wrongly killed by his own people. That would not have made them think he was the messiah, but just another badly treated spokesperson of God. That they did think he was actually the messiah and Lord seems clear from the fact that Paul persecuted them and wanted to destroy them — it was precisely because they were saying this crucified man was the messiah.
Thank Dr. Ehrman.
1. So would you say James and the other apostles believed the same thing as Paul in terms of Jesus’ death being an atoning sacrifice?
2. If so how would you imagine that fits in with the apostles continuing to participate in temple sacrifices. If we draw this out wouldn’t the sacrifice of Jesus trump those done within the temple system, hence negating their use all together (Paul’s view). And if not what did Jesus’ atoning sacrifice actually achieve from the apostles’ perspective?
1. Probably very similar things; we don’t have any records to help us know the nuanced differences; 2. It’s usually assumed the continued to participate in temple sacrifices, but we actually don’t know that for a fact. Sacrifices, though, were for ongoing sins, not for “ultimate salvation,” and most of them weren’t actually for sins at all. The Torah gives a variety of sacrifices for a variety of purposes/reasons, and a good bit of it is not easy to figure out (even by Hebrew Bible experts).
1. Probably very similar things; we don’t have any records to help us know the nuanced differences; 2. It’s usually assumed the continued to participate in temple sacrifices, but we actually don’t know that for a fact. Sacrifices, though, were for ongoing sins, not for “ultimate salvation,” and most of them weren’t actually for sins at all. The Torah gives a variety of sacrifices for a variety of purposes/reasons, and a good bit of it is not easy to figure out (even by Hebrew Bible experts).
Hi Dr Ehrman!
How do you understand the scenario in Exodus 21:22-25? Is it saying that the premature birth is one in which the babies are fine and thus there is no serious injury to either party and thus “serious injury” refers to both the woman and child… so an abortion would constitute the law of Lex Talionis? Or is it saying that the premature birth is a miscarriage and thus the fact that there is “no serious harm” indicates the importance placed on the health of the woman and not on the fetus? And that Lex Talionis relates only to harm done unto the mother and not the fetus?
Thank you!
It’s a very important passage — the only one in the Bible that deals with the question of whether a fetus is “human” so that it’s death caused by another is “murder.” The answer is no. A child has not been murdered; otherwise there would have been a death sentence for the murderer. The law is concerned only with the health of the mother.
Thank you Dr Ehrman!! So just to clarify:
when it says that the woman loses the child, that is indicative of a miscarriage and not a healthy birth?
Yes, it is a miscarriage.
I know there was a priest that listed the 27 books shortly before the Synod of Hippo. What I’ve always wondered is this: did the Synod of Hippo actually decide that these books would be the Cannon? Or did they rubber-stamp a list that included the books that were already widely accepted as being authoritative?
The first to list them was Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, in his 39th festal letter in 367 CE. We don’t know what the Synod of Hippo was seeing as decisive for their view, but it was not a “world-wide council” but a local affair, and shows that there, at least, the 27 books accepted by Athanasius was accepted by them as well. That eventually, of course, became the standard view, but there continued to be debates.
Is this a premium post? I have a regular membership, but cannot access the quiz questions.
In most cases that happens when someone’s membership has run out and not been renewed. If it turns out that’s not your case, click “Help” and send a not to our support team.
Interesting quiz. I did pretty well but a couple of the questions made me stop for a second. I don’t think there’s a correct answer to a couple.
9. Who was the first pope? This was discussed in an earlier question so i won’t do it again here.
12. Who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire? You probably got the name Constantine as the answer but he really didn’t make it the religion of the Empire did he? He legalized it and supposedly adopted it but wasn’t Theodosius the one who made it the Empires religion. He went even further and outlawed the worship of other pagan Gods.
I enjoyed going through he quiz.
Yup, Theodosius I.
Answers?
They are welcome. 🙂
About question no 2:
I suppose this is impossible to know, but I would guess that there were very few Christians in 100 CE, perhaps 1000 persons.