(10 votes, average: 4.60 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post on Abraham Lincoln I discussed how the collective “memory” of important persons from the past can be distorted. We as a society “remember” things in certain ways — e.g., Vietnam; Civil Rights Movement; Elvis; 9/11), — different groups differently and not always accurately . Here I give another example, not to be a definitive demonstration of my point so much as to help us think about the issue. What about our memories of Christopher Columbus? And, well, how about the early Christians’ memory of Jesus?
Again, this comes from the early part of my book Jesus Before the Gospels (HarperOne, 2016).
******************************
Remembering Columbus
Much the same can be said about most of the historical figures that we revere, from Caesar Augustus to Joan of Arc to Christopher Columbus. Columbus is an interesting example. He is not always remembered today in the same glowing terms that we remembered him when I was a child growing up in the 50s and 60s. In those days, we remembered Columbus as one of the great heroes of our past, the one who “discovered America,” who made it possible for civilized people to expand into the new world and to bring their Christian ideals into a backwards and pagan wilderness that stretched from shore to shore. It was Columbus who made possible all the good things that have come down to us in our democratic, wealthy, and noble society. Among other things, he was a good and kind man who treated the native populations with dignity and respect.
Columbus is not always remembered that way anymore. For one thing, today when people talk about his “discovery” of America, they tend to put it in quotation marks. America, in the more widespread view today, was not “discovered.” It was already here, and was populated by civilized peoples, even if their form of civilization was markedly different from the civilization of Europe. And Columbus was not even the first European here. He was preceded by many others.
More than that, Columbus today is often remembered not
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
This brings a whole new reflection to my memories of my parents berating me for “telling stories”…
Dr. Bart,
I rewatched your 2018 debate with Dr. Mike Licona a few days ago. It appeared to me that Dr. Licona didn’t want to surrender the protestant creed of sola scritura, so to speak. I feel the requirement to accept a creed as written as been the bane of Chritianity and withholds the faith from further light and knowledge. It seemed the debate came down to semantics for Dr. Locona. He was one step away from saying “It depends on what you mean by reliable.” I suppose reliability is on a spectrum.
I am one of your fans who does believe in the resurrection of Jesus, but for my own experience and reasons. What I have been thinking about is this: if Jesus is risen from the dead, then He is alive with power still. On going evidence should be permitted. I think the gospels imply that, or at least I can reasonably infer that. The gospels only give us half of the answer. If no one who witnessed the burial and empty grave of Jesus said a word to anybody, how is it that we know?
Thanks. I’d say we “know” because someone started the rumor…
Rumors are powerful mediums
Off topic:
yesterday watching King Charles III’s coronation, I was impressed by his choice of an intimate anointing – with panels surrounding him preventing public view- unlike the open event in his mother’s coronation.
In a show of humbleness, King Charles was dressed in a simple white shirt, all his many golden robes removed.
I know of course that the anointing ritual begins with King Solomon and High Priest Zaddok, which the rousing music by Haendel celebrates.
My question is if there is or could be any remote connection with the naked youth in Mark with regards to the humbling in both experiences.We assume a baptismal type of connection- perhaps there are other possible assumptions- in the youth in Mark and not an oil annointment,which the youth in Mark would not have been a candidate for.
But I am curious to understand why a tradition going back to King Solomon , not the humblest of men, would translate into a new Christian king being anointed whilst wearing as a top only a white shirt.
Great question about Charles. Since I wasn’t around for the previous coronation (!) I didn’t realize that the anointing was even part of it, and was surprised to learn it was. But I don’t know how the history of the ritual developed; closely connected with the divine right of kings, I should think, rooted in Scripture… As to the naked youth: my sense is that most interpreters (apart from Morton Smith) don’t see a baptism connection. One interesting interpretation is that the youth is a symbolic figure who embodies precisely the opposite of Jesus’ teaching, who tells his followers to abandon “everything” to follow him. The youth abandons everything to flee — wanting to have nothing to do with him! (Also, there is a close connection to Blind Bartimaeus who throws aside his mantle to come *to* Jesus; Mark 10:50)
Never knew all this about the naked youth! Thanks. Will connect all those dots.
As for the anointing , the oil used on Charles was pure olive oil from a particular area of the Holy Land. The long arm of Scripture!
The Chrism oil was consecrated in Jerusalem by the Patriarch of Jerusalem in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Charles is, after all, the “ defender of the faith” of the Church of England, of which Charles is the head, since Henry VIII “divorced” the Pope.
https://www.royal.uk/news-and-activity/2023-03-03/the-consecration-of-the-coronation-oil
Yup, so he could divorce his wives. !
Yup, so he could divorce his wives. !
maybe king Solomon was the wisest in his age, but what measure?
He married foreign wives that distracted him for being faithful to Yahweh.
Aren’t other mentioned OT king’s more faithful to God the creator and Saviour of the Jews?
Didn’t he show foreign kings [the secret places] of his wealth?
Written forms of “Remembering Jesus” may have existed earlier than the word-of-mouth stories, 40-65 years after his death, suggested in this article. In a Platinum Member Post on 1/13/23, I listed 46 significant commonalities in Paul’s seven letters of the New Testament (typically dated from 48 CE to 59 CE, within 15 to 26 years after Jesus’ crucifixion) with the Canonical Gospels. I asked members if they thought any of these commonalities were Paul’s invention, or existing Christian doctrine.
I understand there were different versions of early Christianity. I see three potential scenarios:
(1) There were hundreds of Christian doctrine concepts circulating and Paul picked from those for the 46 commonalities, which eventually led to the Gospels.
(2) There was a particular version of Christianity Paul was drawn to. Paul documented 46 important aspects of this particular sect.
(3) In 48 CE the Christian movement was fairly unified with only about 1,000 members. Splinter theologies developed later.
In any case, Paul may have invented some of the 46 concepts. If so, do biblical scholars tend to agree on which concepts he invented? If so, which ones? Of the doctrines he didn’t invent, doesn’t their complexity/uniqueness suggest a developed movement with some written form for continuity?
My sense is that lots of early Christians believed lots of similar things, as we would expect. As to what Paul invented: it’s impossible in every single case to say, since we don’t have any earlier Christian writings.
But “memories of Columbus” are not the same thing as the testimony of an honest witness at a trial, trying to remember, however imperfectly, something they saw. “Memories of Columbus” are narratives that were spun, spun with a purpose, or at least according to conventions. That’s true of the ones I learned in my 1960’s high school history class, as well as more recent ones that I’ve read about in the New York Times.
This brings to mind a recent discovery of mine while listening to Beijing University Philosophy professor’s yourube video, teaching about Confucius and Laozi.
Confucius was a real historic person but Laozi most likely wasn’t. It was quite a shock to me because Laozi had far more legendary stories than even Jesus himself, e.g. he was miraculously conceived, was born as a WISE old man of 70 years old, who was able to walk at birth, who took 7 steps at birth each of which produced a lotus flower on the ground.
Now this was an old master whose 道非道非常道名可名非常名 (which means “the way that can be explained is not the unchanging way; the name that can be named is not the unchanging name”) had influenced Chinese Culture for 2500+ years and is still influencing current Chinese President Xi’s way of managing the Nation of China now.
To realize that Laozi was not an actual person but a school of thoughts passed down in a small 5000-word cryptic essay, many versions of which were found in tombs of later emperors (in other words, a mysterious SPIRIT) really challenges my understanding of what CHRIST may be.
Very interesting! (And thanks for providing a translation!!)
Dr. Ehrman, I have very specific reason to translate these particular words from Laozi’s book (道非道非常道名可名非常名).
In another reply to me you mentioned my understanding of the WORD is similar to Apostle Paul’s – that the WORD had gone into the world after 70AD, so that YHWH might be worshipped anywhere in SPIRIT and everywhere in TRUTH.
I heard of “Solomon’s Clothing & Lilies of the Valley” in China as a little girl. It inspired me not to pay too much attention to outer beauty but to improve inner beauty. So I chose to study Math & Physics. I didn’t know it was a parable told by Jesus.
When I came across the Christian Scripture a few years ago, it surprised me how the WAY and the NAME were taught in Gospel of John. So I searched the Hebrew Scripture about the WAY and the NAME too. Now I understand Laozi, nature, Life, purpose, and LOVE a lot better.
As a result I also understand Quantum Physics better (energy-matter conversion, speed of light, particle-wave duality, particle entanglement, strong force, weak force, gravity, black hole, etc.) and how the higher dimensional realities (heavens) may cast shadows unto SPACE·TIME of the Physical World.
Laozi: from high school we learned that KongZi & he were “real”- but philosophies.
Of course I believed then and for another 30 years thereafter that St Matthew & St John wrote their Gospels and the others were- so what.
But I always doubted St Paul since he didn’t walk that walk or live as Jesus did as others did.
Thanks,
What you have been saying finally struck me the other day. I saw a picture of the Korean War Veterans Memorial and I understood.. IT HAPPENED, but from whose perspective do we see it. Thank you Bart
Any chance you’ll interview Robyn Faith Walsh on your podcast? Her recent work substantially critiques this view of the development of the gospels. Walsh’s book finally came out in an affordable paperback and I’m enjoying it very much. One of the advantages of being a non-specialist is that I can content myself with trying to understand the arguments without necessarily having to commit to an opinion.
I may do…
Off topic question – Do you think the concept of the “Logos” in the gospel of John was directly taken from the works of Philo? He died in 50CE, so he would have directly overlapped with and possibly contributed to the philosophical development of early Christianity. By the time the gospel was written, his ideas would have been available to the Jewish-Christian communities. Would his influence have some from the Jewish community or the Greek community?
No, I don’t. The Logos was a very important feature broadly throughout much of the philosophical discourse in the Roman world at the time, especially in Stoic thinking. Philo was more a Platonist; I’m not sure how influenced John as by Platonic thought, and my view is that Genesis 1 is by far the most important influence on John 1:1-18; but the connections of Logos in John 1 and in Stoic thought are striking…
Bart,
I am currently reading a book by Peter Schafer called Two Gods in Heaven and I must say find it absolutely fascinating – was wondering if you’ve had a chance to look at it and if so what do you think?
Have you ever had a chance to meet Peter? I’ve read another of his books as well Jesus in the Talmud I also thought was very well done.
TY for your time,
SC
He’s a superb scholar; I haven’t read his book but I really should. I’d especially like to see how it relates to the older study of Alan Segal (another fine scholar), Two Powers in Heaven….
I recently read Robyn Faith Walsh’s monograph The Origins of Early Christian Literature. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on her thesis as it seems to run counter to your emphasis on oral transmission of memories of Jesus spread by tight-knit church communities. She thinks that this notion is a hangover of German Romanticism, and focuses instead on the idea that the Gospel authors were elite cultural producers engaged in biography and writing for an elite audience. I’m not convinced but I am intrigued – particularly with regard to Mark as this seems to match its enigmatic style. I’d be very interested to know if you’ve read this book and either way, why you (and the majority of scholars) think oral transmission is the most likely source for our Gospel accounts.
Yes she does! And I’m not convinced at all — but it’s a terrific book and she’s a fine scholar. (I think it’s very hard to think of the Gospel authors as writing for elites, but I’m open to the idea)
What fascinates me most is the fact that so much is remembered with no royal historians or highly learned priests available to create, record or interpret their own reality.
It seems to me that oral accounts are impossible to preserve unless they are written at some point and/or paleography, archaeology and other sciences researching the past make the ancient accounts come alive. And all of it with practically no historic contribution by Paul, the earliest writer.
Reading Celsus, who writes circa 177CE, I was amazed at how accurate his synthesis of the core Christian beliefs was, as well as his reasonings and questions, absorbing the material presumably from all written Gospels, as he discusses John’s “Logos”, for example. Needless to say, I pass no personal judgment on his views.
Can we assume that early enough after the Crucifixion – even as the disciples were illiterate ,though believers like Joseph of Arimathea surely were not- much that had been most recently told was written,in the Land of Israel, in Aramaic perhaps?
Or is Q the oldest ( hypothetical) written source we can think about?
Celsus, of course, is getting his information from Christian sources; some scholars have suggested that he was familiar with the writings of Justin Martyr. I don’t think we can say that there was much written in Aramaic soon after Jesus’ death, or even much later . Most of Jesus’ Aramaic-speaking followers were lower class peasants from rural areas, who would not have been literate. I’d say Q is the oldest hypothetical source with a good deal of plausibility; but it is also hard to know when it was written, other than that it had to be before Matthew and Luke.
It is also remarkable to see what an indelible impression Jesus’ story made on his followers, compounded by their need to reimagine the story after the hurt and disappointment of what actually transpired.
Are any of the Talmud accounts credible? I know the Talmud writers approach the issue with hostility and disrespect, but so does Celsus, yet he is confirmed by the data in the Gospels.
Do you mean the Talmudic stories of Jesus? There are some interesting connectoins with the biblical accounts, but nothing independently credible I’d say. You may be interestd in Peter Schafer’s book Jesus in the Talmud. He is a major scholar of ancient Judaism.
Does the Talmud really mention Jesus of Nazareth?
Do you mean does it use the phrase “Jesus of Nazareth”? No. Does it appear in places to be referring to Jesus? Yes.
Hi Dr. Ehrman, I’ve been enjoying the MJ podcast and I echo the queries of the comments on this thread that suggest you have a dialogue with Robyn Faith Walsh. I recently got her book and look forward to starting it once I finish your book on forgery and counter-forgery.
Good idea. That would be fun.