Loading...This now is the second part of the Primer on the Historical Jesus prepared by Marko Marina, which deals head on with the hardest question of all: how do scholars deal with the Gospels of the New Testament “critically” (not “criticizing” them but providing an honest assessment of their historical value)
Marko provides a very clear summary and set of insights, as you’ll see:
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
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!
Learn More!
Dr Ehrman, I must admit that until I read Marko’s primer just now, I wasn’t aware of the dissatisfaction, in some quarters, with the Criteria of Authenticity. As I believe, from reading your books, that you see these Criteria as having merit, what is your opinion of the new methods?
I’m not sure there are any new methods, frankly. The “criteria” are just basically how historians in all fields do history; If we don’t do history looking carefully at sources, seeing where they are independent, checking out their biases, considering their dates, looking for collaboration, taking account of their corroborations — then basically we can’t do history. My sense is that a lot of the objectsion to the criteria come from NT scholars who aren’t conversant enough with how history is done. Some do want to get rid of historical analysis altogether. Given the state of our world, I’d suggest that’s a very dangerous view. If we can’t determine what happened in the past….
History as your guide. I’m a cradle Episcopalian, meaning I didn’t grow up reading the Bible – for us, it’s the liturgy that matters. So not too many years ago I decided I needed to learn the New Testament from a historical perspective. And I stumbled on i-tunes university and Dale Martin’s introduction to the New Testament class at Yale, Martin’s actual class lectures given over the semester, with the syllabus (required and suggested readings) and links. It was a treasure and perfect. From there I moved on to many other scholars, including Bart Ehrman, who happened to be Martin’s dear friend, as well as more traditonal New Testament scholars (such as N.T. Wright), and on and on I have gone. Many Christians, including evangelical ministers, discourage studying the New Testament from a historical perspective for fear that it may damage one’s faith. That seems a very thin faith to me. Ehrman to his great credit teaches the New Testament in a way that is respectful of all Christians. It’s very Christian! Sadly, Martin is gone, but I have a special place in my heart for him starting me on my path. Don’t be afraid of history.
Thanks! Yup, it was sad to see him go….
In my view, Mark Goodacre completely destroys the whole “multiple independent attestation” criterion. Nearly everybody agrees that Matthew used Mark’s gospel. Goodacre argues convincingly that Luke used Matthew and Mark, and that John was familiar with all 3 synoptics. If that’s the case, we can’t say with confidence that we have ANY independent sources on Jesus.
Sometimes scholars seem to use such loose criteria for source-independence that we would have to say we have multiple independent sources for Batman and Superman.
I don’t think even Mark Goodacres would disagree there is multiple attestatoin of lots of traditions. I may be mistaken. He certainly thinks Luke used Matthew (so there was no q) and that John had access to the other three. But there are traditions found in only ONE of the four (often) that involve the same topic (Jesus telling parables — different ones found in only one account or another; often about seeds — different ones; Jesus associated with John the Baptist — different tales/sayings; Jesus’ controversies — different ones; etc.) EITHER the Gospel writers simply made up everything not found in any of the others OR they had sources of information, probably oral. That means there is certaily independent attestation of important issues. (Not to mention crucifixion etc.)
I’m not sure we would be taking historical reality seriously if we argued that Jesus is attested at the level of Batman…
Dr. Ehrman, are you familiar with the works of Dennis MacDonald? And if so, what do you think of his argument that Mark and some parts of Luke-Acts were trying to imitate stories found in Homer? Do you find it convincing? Thanks!
Yes, and I know Dennis. Really good guy and very learned. But no, I don’t think there ws intentional imitation of Homer in Mark or the other narrative accounts. Most of the themes found in Homer became (and probalby already were before him) fairly commonly place in both spoken tales and written texts; any kind of “dependence” or “direct imitation,” in my judgment, requires substantial and detailed evidence of borrowing, and of that there really just isn’t much at all….
The main problem with the Gospels is that the oral traditions they may have captured would obviously be those received by the few followers of Jesus during his lifetime, and they don’t seem to be particularly “independent” sources.
Let us imagine scholars two millennia from now trying to reconstruct the “historical” Charles Manson based on accounts written 40 years after his death by members of “The Family,” the cult he founded and which still exists.
My intention is not to compare Jesus with Manson, nor Christianity with his cult, but rather to illustrate the poor results that can arise from texts written solely based on the personal experiences of cult participants, passed down through oral tradition for at least four decades before being written down
There is just no way to cross 40-60 years of time, no way at all to claim any sort of independence. Throw all the AI at it and nothing changes the fact that some people are prepared to die for a firmly held myth, see Joseph Smith for a more recent example. Cult grooming is a long practiced art, a practice dedicated to removing doubt, and those 40-60 years are just too far a leap.
One thing to think about is how Christianity could have possibly spread, as it is easily documented to have done, if there were no stories about jesus in circulation in many urban areas of the empire, independently of one another. (That is, stories in Rome weren’t the same as stories in Antioch)
In light of the recent lecture series and in light of this topic as it so often does switching to just how valid the canonical gospels are, I decided to read a very controversial book. The title is Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy To Invent Jesus by Joseph Atwill copyright 2005.
In this book Atwill claims that Flavius Josephus conspired with the Flavian Emperors to create a more pacifist version of Judaism to counter the revolutionary fervor of the leaders of the Jewish revolt of 66-73 CE. Atwill claims that Josephus uses a form of ‘typology’ to create pacifist parallels of his Jewish War narrative cleverly disguised in order to attack the revolutionary fervor of anti Roman Jews and thus blunt the radical movements of that era with Roman occupied Judea.
I see this does not get high marks from other so-called ‘Mythicists.’ What does anyone else think?
Ive never heard of any expert in Josephus, Roman imperial history, or early Christianity (scholars who are atheists, agnostics, Jewish, Christian, or anything else) who give it any credence at all.
Do you believe Jesus was trilingual, as was stated in a documentary posted on the BSA, “The First Christians?” It was a PBS documentary from some time ago and it claimed since Nazareth was about 4 miles from Sepphoris, Jesus probably spoke Greek. I know he didn’t read and write necessarily, but what about this trilingual claim? Is it valid?
No. I think Jesus spoke Aramaic, and that was it. There weren’t a lot of languages being spoken in rural Galilee. The highly educated folk in the big cities (Nazareth was a small village) would have learned Greek. It just seems impossible for some modern folk to imagine that if Sephorris was jsut a few miles away he must have gone there and learned a lot. And if he was living in the modern world, that would be true. But there is zero evidence for it. Most peole never travelled; they had too much to do to survive….
I sure can’t argue the fine points of the blogs presentations. But there are always sources offered that present me with sources for further study. This was no exception. I’m looking forward to following up on Straus and Perrin!
Strauss is a classic. He wrote it when he was young. And it ruined his life (as Schweitzer explains) It wsa translated into English by none other than George Eliot, when *she* was young (before her novels).
My previous comment, which I tried to post a couple of days ago, was refused repeatedly on grounds of exceeding 200 words, though the word-count was under. I hope that can be rectified. Here is a further, clarifying comment. Ehrman is correct that something like the use of the criteria is essential to historical research. What underlies those criteria is really just the use of abductive reasoning (reasoning to the best explanation). Unfortunately, historical data often unavoidably leave too many explanatory possibilities wide open. We just have to accept this. What is unfortunate is that it seems (to many, including some scholars) that too much confidence is reposed in many conclusions. Often even a non-scholar can think of alternative powerful explanations. Very little attention has been paid to the theoretical limitations of abduction.
I have, and have read, all four volumes of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus by John P. Meier, which was my first introduction to this topic. It took me several years to acquire the books from used book stores and to read them, although I was fortunate to find an inscribed copy of the first volume “To Noel, whose learning, diplomacy, and wit conspired to make this book possible. Sincerely, John Meier 10/29/91”
Since these books are up to 30 years in the past, how do they stand the test of time?
As with any study of the historical Jesus, there are lots of debates about this that and the other thing. Meier was a bona fide scholar who knew everything and this is one of the largest and most significant studies. My view is that vol. 1 is espcially valuable. Once he starts conceding miracles as happening, I think he has strayed from his stated purpose of showing what three very different persons with three very different perspectives would be able to agree on….
As a scholarly family historian, I have been taught to not refer to myself in my narratives. I do, of course, identify myself as the author after the title of an article and give my credentials in a footer. But, if our Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were scholars themselves, they might also not put themselves into their narratives. This hypothesis, of course, doesn’t attend to who wrote first, what their sources were, their differences and discrepancies. It only suggests another reason why they didn’t insert themselves in the narrative, even if they were trying to write an historical narrative.
Yes, that’s a possible interpretation (though Luke does put himself into the book of Acts). But the questoin then still remains: what makes us THINK the author was a figure in the story, if he/she gives no indications? My view is that any claims for authorship (this person wrote that, this other person this other thing) requires evidence, and I’m not sure what it would be in this case, other than attributiohns made decades later by others.
Another idea: “Theophilus” means “Lover of God,” to whom The Gospel of Luke is addressed, like addressing something to You All, or “All You All”!
Yes, I think he does mean: You the followers of Jesus.
I am admittedly a novice when studying the NT as historiography. I am reading your textbook, co authored by Hugo Mendez.
Regarding the Comparative Method in this textbook’s chapter on Luke, I note on p. 158, you say, “We will overlook the question of sources.” But on p. 159, col 2, paragraph 2, after introducing Luke’s historiographic preface, you write that he admits to using oral traditions and prior writings. Then you write: “As we have seen, two of these earlier ‘narratives of the things which have been accomplished among us’ are the Gospel of Mark and the document scholars call Q.”
Does not this assume precise prior sources— the Markian Priority and Q—in contradiction to your statement on p. 158?
I’m not trying to be a smart alec, but I do want to be a careful reader and student. Can you clarify why this is not a contradiction in your own statements on the Comparative methodology.
And regarding Theophilus: you do say on p. 161, it refers to fellow believers. I was just trying to point out what I believe Theo + philus might mean. literally, based upon my limited exposure to Greek/Latin.
Ah, good question. There I’m drawing a distinction between knowing (or having incredibly good reasons to suppose) that an author used a source or sources, and a method for studying the Gospels (the Comparative Method) that does not PRESUPPOSE that knowledge. You could study Luke by seeing how it changed Mark (that would be the Redactional Method), and for that you would HAVE to appeal to the source tha thas been changed. But for the comparative method, it doesn’t matter if Mark is a source. Or Matthew. You can do a comparative analysis of Matthew and John without assuming one of them used the other, whether or not you think they really did or not. Make sense?
Thank you for your reply. I get the difference between redaction and comparison. Probably I just got confused by the juxtaposition of the two in the same paragraph on p. 159. No need to respond further. The main point is the 2 different methods, and I get that.
I listen to your podcast with Megan Lewis every night. Last night, I listened to the one about if Jesus was buried in the tomb, and the related question about Joseph of Arimathia. I found the reference to one scholar (Crosson ?) that Jesus was eaten by dogs very disturbing. Indeed, the whole thrust of your argument that Jesus probably was not buried on the same day he died was disturbing, but makes sense in light of at least one Gospel saying the tomb was empty.
And the why of Judas betrayal was also interesting and believable— frustration from Jesus lack of bringing about the Kingdom of God immediately.
FYI, my son is a believer in The Talmud of Jmmanul, supposedly written by Judas Iscarioth, not Iscariot. I am not. But it is interesting that Judas Iscariot did write a Gospel, found in 1978!
Do you care to comment on any of this?
The Gospel of Judas discovered in the late 70s does not claim to be written by Judas. It is an account of Jesus, near the end, in which Judes is the main character (along with Jesus) and is shown to be the only one of the apostles with any idea who Jesus is (the others wrongly worship the creator God and believe Jesus is his son). If you’re interested, my book The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot delves into it. (I was on the team brought together by National Geographic to help them authenticate and understand the book when it reappeared in the early 2000s.)
I listened last night to your interview of Mark Goodacre on the Gospel of Thomas, and have this morning read your textbook on NT where you discuss it, and saw a reference to it in OED Companion to Bible. I have some questions/comments relevant to the autograph being Didymus Judas Thomas, supposedly Jesus’ twin.
As I understand it, this person would have been a Jew, speaking in Aramaic, but the writing was in Greek. Does that not contradict, throw shade on, the ordinary/orthodox tradition that Jesus himself could not have been literate in Greek? It seems unlikely that the twin would be more Greek literate than his brother. What am I missing or misunderstanding?
As to the weird saying about the lion eating the man and the man eating the lion, it struck me as a proto-ecological understanding of earthly things, and/or for similar spiritual ideas found in Hinduism, New Age religions (of which I am not well informed). Just some random thoughts.
Ah, good questoin. No, the author is claiming to be Thomas, but it wsa someone else; there are a number of Thomasine writings out there. Jesus’ brother Jude, like him, could not write Greek.
From Professor Thomas F.X. Noble’s lectures on the Foundations of Western Civilization, he spoke of the logic methodology of Scholastic exegesis on the Bible. (As a PhD candidate in political philosophy, I read Aquinas’ Summa Theological, probably not really understanding it.)
I’m wondering if modern Scriptural methods such as you studied and practice are a kind of reiteration (not identical, with significant differences, e.g. Catholic institutionalism compared with Protestant, including evangelical scholars)? Could Metzger’s teachings and beliefs be analogized to the prior Scholastic efforts?
Most modern critical scholarship emphasizes a literal, historical, contextual reading of the Bible that is actually the same way we read every text of every period. The Scholastics did have a good bit of that, but critical readings have no theological assumptions underlying them, and stem mainly from the Enlightenment.
Trying to understand post-conversion Paul on “the Law,” per NT textbook, pp. 352-353: Jews began to misuse the Law by keeping it as a way to establish a right standing before God, to earn God’s favor. Romans 3:20 equates this with deeds rather than knowledge of sin. Apparently, his logic was proto-Lutheran or proto-Calvin, humans are too enslaved to sin to be liberated by keeping the Law religiously/faithfully. Salvation or Grace is achievable only through Christ’s resurrection. But, in that case, how did Paul interpret “covenant “? Was the resurrected messiah an implied part of the covenant that, according to apocalyptic theology, the keepers of the Law ignored ? Yes, Jesus accused the elites (Pharisees/Sadducees) among the Jews as hypocrites, but is this the same thing as denying God’s covenant promises? I guess I’m trying to square apocalyptic thinking with Covenant thinking. Maybe it can’t be done?
One thing that makes it tricky is that Paul himself says, about himself, that “with respect to the righteousness found in the law, I was found blameless” (Phil. 4). So apparently being blameless before teh law does not mean never breaking the law (possibly becuase the law itself provided a means of having sin resolved, through sacrifice). But even those few who have that level violate God’s law/will and so need salvation that hte law cannot provide, since the law indicates what God requires but doesn’t give people the power to do it The power can come only from being “in Christ” — which happens at baptism, when a person is unified with Christ and so “dies” to sin. For Paul, the covenant God made with the Jews was that they needed to “believe” in him and accept his offer of salvation. Since Christ provided the means of salvation, that meant believing in him. And keeping the law wasn’t the same thing as believing in Christ. It is indeed very complicated (Paul’s view of the law).
Okay, I think I get now Paul’s understanding of “covenant.” The original was to Abraham and covered all nations/peoples. The one with Moses was more focused on how the Jews were to live among pagans, as a remnant of moral purity, until a third redemption was historically established, namely, through the resurrected messiah, lord, savior, available now to pagans/Gentiles too. Indeed, they become the people/nations through whom the triumph of good over evil/God over sin is made possible, via triumph over Rome and “the world.”
To be sure, paradise on Earth is still a long way off, and self-proclaimed Christians have much blame to bear for not doing enough to save humanity from poverty, hunger, sickness, etc. But, as you note, while ecological disasters may be partly humanly-caused by prideful triumphalism, I believe such cosmic forces are also natural phenomena not wholly caused by human nature. (Actually, not sure you would disagree with me on that point.)
Thank you for your replies to my earlier questions. I have several others.
1. Can cremains receive resurrection, or was this not a historically used practice in Greco-Roman/Jewish traditions?
2. Remind me why the Gospel of Thomas could not be Q.
3. Could we interpret the “Messianic Secret “ as a “ conspiracy”; and maybe Judas Iscariot’s betrayal was of that, and of his mistaken hopes for it?
4. When the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles on the 1st Pentecost after Jesus’s death, enabling “ speaking in tongues,” or foreign languages nobody knew before, why should we not interpret this as including becoming literate in Greek and/or Latin, or Coptic, etc?
1. In theory, yes. 2. Because most of the sayings of Q are not in Thomas and most of the sayings in Thomas are not in Q and when there is overlap, the sayings are worded differently. 3. Depends what you mean by conspiracy; I do think Judas betrayed the secret. 4. It doesn’t say anything about being able to read. Literacy is about reading and writing, not speaking.
Continued from 1-4, above
5. As a former professor of American political science and constitutional law, I sometimes encountered interpretive situations with my undergraduates that went beyond helping them understand “just the facts” of governmental institutions and practices. I succumbed to temptations to offer my personal opinions. So, I am wondering if this happens to you, and how you suspended your personal theological views from your purely historical understandings. I do note you occasionally say scholars disagree on this or that point, then maybe offer your own. But I am thinking about this as you transitioned from believer to agnosticism and atheism.
I sometimes do tell my students my personal views about things, but I always emphasize they are my views and that they need to figure out their own views based on evidence, rather than on what others (including their professor) happen to think (based on their own reading of the evidence.)
Do you suppose that AI might eventually help scholars solve the problems of approaching original texts for the Bible, and historically accurate interpretations?
I doubt it. All it can do is generate answers based on the data fed into it, even if it is an incredible amount of data.
Tonight from your Wonderium lectures on early and modern controversies in Christianity, I learned some new concepts about God. Jesus, in relation to God, the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity.
As an aside, I like the parallels between the opening lines of Genesis and the Gospel of John; indeed, I really like the poetic quality of John.
I at first thought I liked the adoptionist view; then the modelist view. Not sure I care for the Separationist view—it presents it seems the laughing Jesus as very cynical toward stupid people who fail to understand him or God.
You mentioned 2 other views that start with an h and are different by an iota. I don’t find them in your NT textbook, and I don’t remember what you said.
Your explanation of the Trinity was very helpful to me, even persuasive in terms of my liberal Protestant upbringing and education.
Good luck in your retirement. I hope I can see a recording of your speech. I bought 2 books tonight, the one on Judas Iscariot and the one on all the non-canonical books.
The Arian controversy in the 4th century was in effect about the diffence between homoousias (of the “same substance”) and homoiousias (of “similar substance). Are Jesus and God fully equal in their divine essence or are they only similar?
I recently reread Mark, after hearing you describe it in your Misquoting Jesus podcast as your favorite Gospel, then reading your description of it in your NT textbook, plus what I read in OED Companion to the Bible. I was struck by not only the acts of miracle healings, but in many cases his exhortations to sin no more (not said to Lazarus, as I recall, or to children). Should I infer from these exhortations that in antiquity a common belief was that illness is CAUSED by sinfulness? (That’s what Job’s “friends” told him.)
It reminds me of a conversation I had with a Southern Baptist colleague at TN Tech Univ, a professor of English literature, wherein she described illness as symbolic for sinfulness, for example the ugliness of the Phantom of the Opera, covered by his mask.
Yes, in some places in the NT the connectoin of sin and illness/death is made quite explicit.
I found an apt phrase for the human cost of authorship, reportedly in 2 Maccabees 24-32, in addition to sweat and lost sleep.
“If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do.”
I love it, and wish I had appended as an epigram to all I have written.😊
I just finished reading transcripts of you 4 lectures, Life After Faith. I was hoping to find an in-depth description of your teenage spiritual conversion, what precipitated it, the psychological sensations, etc. I didn’t find that, but I found later perhaps why you haven’t shared this: fundamentalists might be inclined to argue it wasn’t authentic (for whatever reasons). I get that.
I found the rest of the lectures completely satisfying. That is to say, I relate personally to much of what you said. Let me give a few examples: 1) as a college student, I believe to be “content” was insufficient because I took it to mean choosing not to be active in changing the world for peace and justice. In my maturity, I think I have accepted it as closer to recognition of my limitations to change things, but still striving to change the things definitely within my spheres of influence; 2) appreciation of Platonic/Socratic/Aristotlean values; 3) Christian expansion of community and understandings today of secular humanism.
I don’t recall not discussing that , but it would not be because of what fundamentalists would say. It would have been because I’ve covered that at length in my books, especiallly God’s Problem.
I appreciate your recipe for contentment: avoid cocktail parties, engage more deeply in personal conversations with someone or a small group, thinking, meditating on ideas, walking in woods, along streams, in the mountains (I lived in Yosemite as a teenager), along beaches (I live now in California Central Coast), enjoyable work AND leisure (today, I participate in genealogy studies, including DNA, and volunteer civic engagement activities, e.g. League of Women Voters), humor, beauty, Dodgers baseball, cultural and history studies. I agree with you about the evils that we must struggle to overcome, and how to do it.
You will probably love your retirement!
I look forward to hearing or from you as time allows!
Well, I don’t entirely avoid cocktail parties. But moderation in all things!
Tonight I finished the NT textbook chapter comparing Paul to Jesus and to James, etc. Several thoughts came to mind.
1. With just a few basic exceptions about what he could trust in traditions about the historical Jesus, Paul’s letters are true to what he personally experienced and could trust; thus, I believe option 3 best explains the contents of his letters (p. 431).
2. Paul and James seemed like in a college debate trying to score theological points with the churches, using “faith” “works,” Abraham as a protocol, but essentially talking past each other rather than trying to solve a problem together.
3. I dig the story of Thecla as a proto-feminist appreciation of why sexual abstinence was right for her.
I realize now the Beloved Disciple was John, son of Zebedee. I still don’t know why he was called the Beloved Disciple.
On another note: it has occurred to me that Paul’s view that pagans need not become Jews and his argument with James on this point was short-sighted. Jews had special exemptions to practice their own faith/religion without fear for running afoul of the state’s/Rome’s requirements to pay homage to the state’s gods. Why did not, to keep the peace, encourage pagans to first become Jewish and thereby by their adoption of Judaism before converting to Christianity be protected by the same exemptions their neighbors and Jewish communities enjoyed? Did Paul’s own conversion experience prevent him from that being included in his missionary work? How different things might have been in the early centuries before Constantine’s conversion!
I don’t think he was or was meant to be John the Son of Zebedee. But even if he was, or not, he is called that to show that he was the one closest to Jesus, in compaarison, apparently, to Peter, alongside whom he is usually mentioned.
Paul believed that if anyone thought they had to become Jewish they completely misunderstood the message of the gospel, that it was only the death of Jesus that mattered before God. So he wasn’t taking this view as a matter of convenience for practical, daily life
It occurred to me reading about martyrdom, the apologists, and growth of Christianity among the pagans that perhaps one explanation is that there was such diversity of beliefs and practices that the pagans were simply overwhelmed in rhetorical power. Then, of course, when Christianity became the state religion, paganism mostly got washed out.
You have probably said this. I might just be putting it in my own words.
If I can get political: it is kind of how MAGA is dominating liberal thought today. OMG, I am also reminded of QAnon and Pizza-gate accusations against Hilary Clinton when I read of the supposed cannibalism, etc made against early Christian communities.
I’m in the midst of reading Crosson’s book, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (Harper, 1991). Wow! Impressive scholarship, much of what is too much in the weeds for me, a layperson retired professor of American politics and public law. My main takeaway is that Jesus was a peasant Jewish Cynic, and he makes a good argument for it (p. 421-422, and in passim).
I note with interest that his Bibliography doesn’t include your scholarship. Also, as I understand you, your main conclusion is that Jesus was an apocalyptic Jewish peasant.
I don’t suppose that you and Crosson are in opposition to each other’s conclusions, but perhaps have complementary views. Is that right? Or is there something fundamentally different between your scholarship and/or conclusions?
By the way, I saw a videotape of your last UNC lecture. Thank you, and enjoy your retirement!
My scholarship came along after he wrote the book. You’re right, it’s in the weeds to the point where most folk aren’t able to see the problems with it. I fundamentally disagree that Jesus is best seen as a Cynic INSTEAD of an apocalypticist (which is C’s thesis). Experts who point out the problems with his view take careful note of how he dates the sources that he places in his “first layer” of tradition. Our generally recognized earliest sources for Jesus’ teaching are Mark and Q; he dates them LATER than the sources that he maintains show Jesus to be non-apocalyptic. He and I don’t agree on this, but he’s a highly learned and witty scholar, and we get along extremely well.
I have finished reading How Jesus Became God. In parallel, I am attending Dr. Phillip Cary’s Wondererium lectures, with the accompanying guidebook, The History of Christian Theology ( 2008) He is/was Professor oh Theology at Eastern University in Pennsylvania; his graduate studies were at Yale. His specialties are Augustine, Luther, and the Trinity. He said Augustine showed the fundamental logic of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity can be stated fairly simply in seven statements: the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God. The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Father; the Holy Spirit is not the Father. There is only one God.
Simple, yes. But it is given between second and third ecumenical councils, How do you regard his contribution to orthodox understanding?
That seems like a fairly clear and coherent statement to me. What it leaves out is that they are equally God, of the “same substance.” Many people in antiquity believed Jesus was God, but that he was a lower level God than the Father.
I’m finishing your book, Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. I haven’t a question. But it has occurred to me that as King of the Jews (whom John baptized and an unnamed woman “annoited with oil”) are not only consistent with Jewish traditions of God’s electing someone, e.g., David, to be king of the Jews , but also is consistent with contemporaneous antiquity traditions of divinity a la monarchy. Moreover, it prefigures pre-Enlightenment European notions of “divine right of kings” and governing according to reason and Natural Law, Platonic Philosoher-King, etc. That’s point #1 for this post.
Point #2: I do want to make Jesus’s teachings relevant to my secular humanism. So aside from Crosson’s (mis) dating Gospels, etc., I am impressed by the “Cynic” philosophy he ascribes to Jesus.
Comments?
1. Interesting, thanks. 2.Yes, Crossan’s Jesus is extremely relevant to our modern situation. Whether he corresponds to the “historical” Jesus is a different issue….
One more point that I made elsewhere but can’t find: I asked if Paul was baptized by water. I think I found the answer somewhere in your books. No. His only baptism was by the spiritual vision of the resurrected Jesus electing him to be an apostle.
Paul never mentions his own baptism. But when the term is used in the Gospels and Acts it always refers to water, and that is almost certainly what Pual himself refers to in his references to baptism.