(18 votes, average: 4.78 out of 5)
Loading...
Many thanks to everyone who responded to my queries about how we could make the Blog better. I received some very good ideas, and one in particular that I want to implement, starting with this post. That involves a weekly Reader’s Mailbag.
I get a lot of questions each week, and usually can only devote an occasional post to them. Otherwise, all I can do is give a one-sentence or so response in my Comments. But the idea that several people suggested was: why not have a feature where, in a short directed response, I address interesting questions people raise? I could do this every week. The comments would not be as long as a full post, let alone a thread, but much fuller than I can make in my Comments section.
I think it’s a great idea. So I’m gonna try it. My idea is that the questions should be short and to the point. They can be on any topic involving the New Testament, the history of early Christainity, or any related topic. I will try to write replies that are compact but full of information. In some instances I may later decide to devote posts to one of the questions.
I will simply pick two or three of the questions I get each week to give in the following week’s post. So if you have questions that I can address, ask them now.
I have chosen three questions I received last week to get us started with this feature. Here they are.
QUESTION: What do you think was the source for the virgin birth story?
RESPONSE: I think it is really interesting that in our…
You Can See the Rest of My Response, and the Other Questions and Responses, by JOINING!!! Do so! No one in the history of the human race has yet regretted it!!!
Dr. Ehrman,
I know that you think all 4 gospels were written in the 1st century while others like Dr. Robert Price place them as late as the middle of the 2nd century. Obviously you don’t agree with that theory on the whole, but is there any bit of evidence for later dating of the Gospels that you feel may be legitimate or difficult to argue against ?
They do appear to be referred to and quoted by church fathers already at the beginning of the second century, so they must have been written before that.
But again, why then cobble together a family tree that traces Jesus’ heritage back to David, through Joseph?
Rumors of illegitimacy are, more often than not, untrue. Many royal heirs were rumored to be illegitimate, to try and undermine their claim to the throne.
If Jesus had siblings, and we know he did, that means somebody married his mother. Presumably Joseph. The penalties for getting pregnant out of wedlock would have been pretty severe. I still think the best explanation is that Joseph and Mary jumped the gun while still betrothed, and had to get married sooner than they normally would have.
This could easily have led to rumors Jesus was fathered by someone else, while his own family knew Joseph was the father. It’s hard to believe any man of that era would marry a girl with no money who was carrying someone else’s child–but nothing is impossible when it comes to the human heart.
Of course, for the purposes of this theory, all that is necessary is for some people hostile to Christianity to have repeated this story, embroidering on it, making up a Roman soldier named Pantera to give it more credence. And in time, the story was neutralized by the creation of the virgin birth myth, which in no way offended the increasingly gentile Christian community.
However–
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineality_in_Judaism
Christianity was being founded right in the middle of a major shift in how Jews came to think about who was really Jewish. Now, seeing as that we agree that the fact that we have a quote in the gospels doesn’t mean anybody ever actually spoke those exact words, it’s entirely possible that the quote “Is this not the son of Mary?” is not something anybody ever actually said. Though of course somebody might have. But how would the gospel writer know that? Suppose he just made that up?
So we get a mixed tradition–genealogies referring to Joseph as Jesus’ natural father, and insisting Joseph was of the line of David (my mother used to say all the Irish are descended from Kings and Princes, so it’s entirely likely that very humble Jewish families likewise claimed royal blood). But also references that focus on Jesus’ lineage through Mary, because it would be through Mary that he was truly a Jew. Not Joseph. Let alone Pantera, if there ever was such a person.
So this may not mean anything with regards to the Virgin Birth at all. Except that it would have been a tempting way to get out of the whole genealogy mess. Obviously God being his father trumped everything else. Though as we all should know, “Son of God” was a common honorific applied to Jewish holy men of that era.
First. Maybe Mary was “HOT” and Joseph was “NOT”.
Second. Maybe you are uncovering the “CORE” reason why Jesus was empathetic to prostitutes and insensitive to accepted current laws of Judaism. Maybe even the Core to why Jesus wanted to override the dogmatic Jewish law. His mother HAD endured harsh treatment for her teenage condition and he was stigmatized throughout life for it. Those severe penalties you mention, might have been the catalyst for him to argue against treatment from following the law.
Seems like a stretch to me. It’s possible, sure. But it seems a bit–I dunno–scripted? You could just as easily say that kind of disgrace growing up would make him less sympathetic, more obsessed with sexual purity (Jesus just did not seem to care much about sex, one way or another). And there is no evidence Jesus hung out with prostitutes. Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. That’s just something that got tacked on after the fact. Jesus did reportedly show sympathy for women who had sex outside of marriage (because, again, he just didn’t care). He was strongly against the existing Jewish tradition regarding divorce, because it strongly favored men–who would often leave the women who had worked besides them and marry a young woman, leaving the first wife with nothing–I don’t see how that links up to Joseph marrying a pretty young woman.
I think the whole Virgin Birth thing is mainly made up out of nothing, but there could have been some rumors that got garbled over the decades. I don’t believe Jesus was illegitimate, and I don’t believe he thought that was anything unusual about his birth.
Great idea!!
Good luck with the mailbag feature. … All of your sample questions & responses were interesting!
Hello, Bart. I would like to add one of my own questions for a future Readers Mailbag: what evidence, if any, is there that Peter died in Rome or ever visited Rome? Thanks.
Dr. Ehrman, here’s a question. Since Revelation was probably written around the year 95 why does it seem to share the imminent Armageddon view of the earlier books like Mark and the Pauline epistles? The Gospel of John came around that time and seemed to counteract the “this generation” idea due to the late date. So why is it in Revelation?
Great idea. I enjoyed your three responses very much.
I think the “Jesus stories” were so successful because they were simply “made up” to support “political” or “social ethic” ideals. The Jesus story was used as a spiritual conqueror, like when Serapis (Σέραπις, Attic/Ionian Greek) or Sarapis (Σάραπις, Doric Greek), for example, was instituted as a Graeco-Egyptian god. The Cult of Serapis was introduced during the 3rd century BC on the orders of Ptolemy I of Egypt as a means to unify the Greeks and Egyptians in his realm. An elaboration of these ideas are made in the four or five comments I make at the bottom of this blog post on Vridar: http://vridar.org/2015/09/21/comments-open/#comment-73290
That makes no sense at all. When these stories were first told, they were not a source of power for anyone, and at most they only unified a handful of believers–even there, the unity was mainly illusory, since they were clearly debating the identity and nature of Jesus almost from the moment he was taken down from the cross.
Yes, temporal politics enters into it later, but only well after the gospels have all been written.
You can’t seem to explain why these other myths you mention did not withstand the test of time. Why do so many people–really, most of the world’s population, since Muslims revere the gospels as well–still find inspiration in these four books? Because they are inspiring. They obviously can’t be completely true. But the people who wrote them did not think they were making them up. There is a foundation there–of things that really did happen, deeds and words that actually transpired in history. To deny that is to deny reason.
The Triumph of Christianity. Excellent choice of subject, that I look forward to buying!
This new weekly feature is an outstanding improvement to the site.
Pumped for your next book!
Love this format! I’ll be thinking of questions I’ve always wanted to ask.
Why do you think Jesus remained single his whole life? Could that have been part of the reason he was seen as a divine being? Ordinary people marry, not highly esteemed divine beings?
If I may presume to respond (not being any kind of scholar in this arena)–no. Many people never married in the ancient world, for a variety of reasons, material and religious. Vestal Virgins, for example. Nobody thought they were divine beings, though they were linked to the divine.
Jesus never seems to have explicitly ruled out marriage. He was a relatively young man when he died. We don’t know if he had any romantic relationships–he certainly enjoyed the company of women, and treated them as equals in a way few men of his era did. Very strange to have him scold one sister for scurrying around to fix him a meal, while praising another for listening to him teach.
He was eventually seen as a divine being, I think, because he was such an exceptional person, others had to find some excuse for falling so far short of the standard he’d set. If he was the Son of God, and he was born of a virgin without original sin, and he was omnipotent and omniscient, that could explain how he could be the way he was.
But maybe we all could. That certainly seems to be what he said. If any of us had faith the size of a mustard seed, we could move mountains. He believed we could all be like him. Some of us have been. Not many.
Thanks for your input. I don’t know how he managed to stay single with so many female followers.
Given that he clearly believed the world as he knew it was coming to an end in his lifetime, and perhaps coming to believe that he had to die for this to occur……
The weekly Readers’ Mailbag is a great idea – an interesting variety of topics.
“The Triumph of Christianity” is a fascinating topic. I’m going to hop in my time machine and go to the future to buy a copy right now!
Great questions. I’m glad you implemented this idea!
Great new feature. All these questions and answers are interesting…and your response to the third is terrific! I’ll be very eager to read that book.
Did Matthew change it to “son of the carpenter” to *set the record straight* that the father of Jesus was known?
Possibly! It’s an intriguing change…
Dr. Ehrman,
What are your thoughts on the women in the genealogy of Matthew and this first question about Mary and the virgin birth? Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and the wife of Uriah or Bathseba each have some interesting stories. Do you think their inclusion by the author of Matthew means he considered Mary in similar company, i.e. she got pregnant outside of marriage and that he did not (originally) consider the virgin birth story?
Dan Mangum
Yes, he seems to want to show that women with sexually dubious pasts (or at least rumors told about them) were always part of the divine plan for his messiah.
I really like this addition to the blog.
I am deep into research on the next book…..
I hope old age doesn’t over take me, and that my eyes don’t give out, before its published, Professor.
Considering the extent of such an undertaking, does 4-5 years seem about right?
Hi Bart,
I too like this idea of a weekly Readers Mailbag.
This was quite interesting.
Thanks
John
Great idea! I am looking forward to it.
Just a small smile for you – your typo in the last paragraph on the virgin birth has substituted “moral” for “mortal”. Very amusing.
cheers,
Ian
P.S. This is a good idea.
What do you think was the source of the astounding concept that an individual could take on if not atone for the sins of another let alone the world?
Dr. Ehrman:
Wonderful change of pace. Used sparingly (no more than once a week, maybe a bit less), this is a nice break from your longer threads (which are plenty interesting, but like Russian novels sometimes are best interspersed with a Shakespearean sonnet or two … or three).
Do we know anything about Paul’s death?
I really dig this idea Dr Ehrman. Where is it we should ask questions for this ? Here, message you or any of the comment sections ? Also, half way through “How Jesus Became God” and really enjoying it. A little compliment from, I’m sure the far end of the spectrum of those on here. Being a tattooed Southern California punk music type. Like your style, think your cool and thanks for raising human consciousness and the invaluable knowledge. Peace.
The “Reader’s Mailbox” is a very good suggestion. I was also wondering about your next project. Wow! What an undertaking. I am glad that you are working on a trade book so I do not have to wait so long to read a new Ehrman book. As you know, the growth of Christianity is often used as evidence that it must be true in order to have grown so fast with that growth being divinely guided. I think this is an interesting argument. On the other hand, Mormonism has also grown rapidly. What does that mean? I think part of the answer is that humans hunger for explanations of life and flock to apparent answers. Moreover, the dogmatism of the answers provides a certainty which is comforting when life seems confusing.
Question: Did Jesus REALLY think or believe that he was “the only begotten”, Son of God – conceived by the Holy Spirit; born of a virgin?
No, not at all. See my book How Jesus Became God.
Yeah. Your book confirmed my suspicion that he didn’t. I need to re-read it, or at least refer to the dozens of stickies attached to the pages. 🙂
I don’t see any need to think Jesus’s paternity was disputed. It seems to me that it would be *too much of a coincidence* for there to have been, from the start, questions about the paternity of a man whose followers – after his death – would come to think of him, first, as having been made “divine” at his “resurrection”…then, at his baptism…and *finally*, at his conception, with his mother being a “pure” virgin.
The “Pantera” story was seemingly invented by a 2nd-century opponent of Christianity. And *if* someone actually called Jesus the “son of Mary” (rather than of Joseph), there could be explanations other than Joseph’s not having been his father.
But I admit I’ve played with this idea. Perhaps Jesus was a few years older than scholars believe. His father, Joseph, was Mary’s first husband; and Joseph was one of the 2000 rebels crucified after the uprising in Sepphoris. His family might have escaped being sold into slavery solely because they lived in nearby Nazareth, not in Sepphoris itself. Jesus might have been attracted to apocalypticism because he hoped its “general resurrection” would bring his father back! And his disciples wouldn’t have wanted it well-known that he was the son af a crucified rebel.
Have you ever speculated on the motives of the first person to make up the fake resurrection story? I’ve often wondered whether they viewed it as a lie they way we would, or if they had a different conception of truth.
I don’t think anyone was lying. See my book How Jesus Became God where I try to explain it all.
I have a question for your next reader’s mailbox?
I am interested in 1st century proto orthodox teachings as I have conservative Christians at work who want to prove the view of the trinity as Jesus being Yahwa has always been the fact (shockingly as I thought modern Christians didn;t view it this way in the trinity after the 3rd century). I quoted the Book of Mark and they pointed out it says Son of Man.
Anyway, I want to ask what your viewpoint is on the Didache? I saw a youtube video about it where in the prayer Jesus is referred to as a servant to the father. Is it a reliable 1st century view on the Jewish followers of Jesus? What can we learn from this about the early Jewish church teachings?
It’s actually a rather complicated question. The Didache dates from around 100 CE, but embodies earlier Xgical views that do indeed seem to be early Jewish Christian. My view is that there were probably a number of different Jewish Christian views of Jesus (just as there are a number of Christian views today), and that the idea of him being the “Servant of the Lord” (see Isaiah 53) was one of them.
“It’s actually a rather complicated question. The Didache dates from around 100 CE, [but embodies earlier Xgical views that do indeed seem to be early Jewish Christian].”
Very early Jewish Christian James, perhaps? Pre-Paul, certainly. Considering the basic facts that James (along with Peter and John) lead the Jewish Christian church during the years immediately following Jesus’ death, and strict adherence to Jewish Law was still in play, as well as the similarities that are between the epistle of James (minus a few things) and the Didache, I can well imagine he wrote it (earliest version).
My suspicions are further aroused by the introduction to the epistle of James in the 1917 reference edition of the KJV (Stonehaven) which indicates James’ epistle predates Paul and his earliest writing.
(Sometimes more is to be learned from the intros and footnotes, it seems).
I don’t think you can draw a straight line of development so that something that is “very” Jewish Christian is therefore earlier than Paul. There were Jewish Christians for centuries after Paul.
I think James was certainly written after Paul. I give the evidence in Forgery and Counterforgery.
Yes. I understand there were Jewish Christians for centuries after Paul. My most recent interest, however, has been the Jewish Christians prior to Paul, among whom were James, Peter and John, for as much as it seems church and seminary teachings fly in the face of true historicity, especially when it comes to these three, who were, as far as I can tell, the only possible eye witnesses to the life and the death of Jesus.
Surely they would have written or recorded something such as the sayings/teachings of Jesus, be those sayings embedded in Q or a very early Didache that didn’t reach completion until after Paul and outside Palestine.
No matter. I’ve ordered Forgery and Counterforgery and well look forward to gaining a far better understanding, though from the comments section on Amazon, it seems, it’s going to be a bit of a challenge for me, but well worth the effort, so thanks for pointing it out.
🙂 Seems I’m going to have to turn the family room into a library if you keep writing books, Bart.
I wish we *did* have some record of what they thought and believed! Unfortunately, since they and their followers were illiterate, we don’t have a trace….
Good morning, Bart.
Who was the first to suggest that Joseph was “aged”, had been married before, making Mary his 2nd wife, and the children born of his previous marriage, step siblings of Jesus, and when?
I don’t believe Scripture supports that theory, nor that Jesus wasn’t the naturally born son of Mary and Joseph. IE:
Luke 2:41-48 makes repeated reference to Jesus as their son.
41) Every year his (Jesus’) parents went to Jerusalem
43) After the feast was over, while his parents were returning home
48) When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have your treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”
Then this:
49) “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?
50) But they did not understand what he was saying to them …
How could it be that they did not understand after the whole divine impregnation and virgin birth thing of Luke 1:26-35?
We have learned much about Scribes changing the text of Scripture. Could it not be that the copyist of Luke added to Luke’s account in both 2:41-48 and 1:26-35 adding to the text verses 34 and 35 in chapter 1, and 49 in chapter 2, in order to support a virgin birth story?
Couldn’t Luke 1:26-33 be understood to mean simply that Mary would conceive, and even of Joseph, and bear a son whom she would call Jesus, and wouldn’t this explain why they, but Mary in particular, at times doesn’t seem to know or to remember who Jesus was alleged to be?
26) In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth
27) to a virgin betrothed[a] to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary
28) And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”
29) But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be
30) And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God
31) And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus
The first to suggest that Joseph was an older widower with adult children is the unknown author of the Proto-Gospel of James.
Who was the first to suggest that Mary’s hymen was magically restored after she gave birth? I mean, otherwise how could she be ‘ever-virgin’? Unless Jesus was born by c-section, which would give a whole new meaning to ‘render unto Caesar.’ 😉
The idea is not that her hymen was restored but that it was never ruptured. You first find this idea in the Proto-Gospel of James.
Thanks–growing up Catholic I heard that her virginity had been restored, though not from my parish priests (who were intelligent men). The problem with the original idea is that half of all Christians knew very well that there was no waya baby is getting born without doing some damage on the way out. Son of God or no.
Hi. At Highland Park United Methodist Church in Dallas, we have a series on the Reformation. They only had the Vulgate before scripture written in the original Greek came to Western Europe. Apparently, people who began to read the new scripts, saw the original Greek manuscripts did not say what the Church was saying. Why they couldn’t see that in the Vulgate, I don’t know; BUT YOU DO, MAYBE. I say maybe because I do not remember you making a big deal between the Vulgate and early Greek manuscripts. What do you think, professor?
There are certainly some differences, but not enormous ones.
Thank you, professor.
Really looking forward to the spread of Christianity book. Think you made some remarks on this as part of one of your old Great Course series. Was the empire-wide diaspora of Jews or Jewish converts a big part of the spread velocity, do you think, or perhaps the opposite (an impediment)?
It obviously helped in some ways. But most Jews certainly did not convert.