(15 votes, average: 4.73 out of 5)
Loading...A week or so ago I started to describe how I’m thinking of one of my future books, that I’m tentatively calling The Battle for the Bible. The book (if I write it) will be about how Christians got the Old Testament and saw the Old Testament as *their* book rather than the Jews’, who had misinterpreted it and given up (without their knowledge) any claim to it. My argument is that this dispute is what ultimately led to the history of anti-Judaism among Christians, which is eventually what led centuries later to anti-semitism.
It will take a long time in the book to show how it worked – it’s a complicated issue. In my first two posts I stated the thesis in its bald terms, and I received several negative comments about it by readers who thought it can’t be that simple. And of course they are right. It’s not. But I haven’t started to explain how it all worked. You have to see the whole system before you can tell whether it works or not. (I’ve just spent three days in in Pythagorio on the Greek Island of Samos, birthplace of Pythagorus, the famous Greek philosopher and mathematician. If you were to tell a person who knew absolutely nothing about math that with a right triangle the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square of the two other sides, they would think you were nuts. You have to show it and explain it before it makes sense. So too any historical view. You can’t just state it and expect anyone to buy it. You have to show how and why it works….)
Anyway, my proposal to myself will not adducing all the evidence, but it will be doing more of that then I’ve done so far. My entire proposal is about 8000 words lone, and so this will take a few more posts at least to lay out the skeleton of the case. Here’s the next bit. (If you’re not remembering the lead-in, see the two earlier posts https://ehrmanblog.org/why-do-christians-have-an-old-testament-another-trade-book/ and https://ehrmanblog.org/is-the-old-testament-a-christian-book/)
**************************************************************
The story of how it happened – how Christians, in effect, co-opted the Jewish Bible – is both historically intriguing and socially tragic. One part of my book will explore the historical intrigue; the other the social tragedy.
An Early Christian Conundrum: Is the Hebrew Bible Part of the Christian Scripture?
First I must deal with the all-important prior question I have already alluded to. If, very early in their history, Christians chose to bypass precisely the laws and instructions the Bible enjoins on the people of God, why did they see any utility of having the Old Testament at all? If it was outdated, why not simply jettison it altogether?
Early Christians took a number of different approaches to that question. One view can be assigned to the historical Jesus himself and his very earliest followers – the disciples and their converts. These were Jews …
To see the rest of this post you will need to belong to the blog. There’s a lot of interesting information here. You should join! Won’t cost much, and all proceeds to to help those in need.
A fascinating topic, but the proposed title might cause some confusion, since Harold Lindsell of Fuller Theological Seminary used the exact same title for his 1976 book defending biblical inerrancy.
Might drive up sales! (A terrible book by the way.) But the real point is, no one in my intended audience will have been influenced by a fundamentalist book from over 40 years ago.
I was influenced by it–just not in the way Lindsell probably intended. It’s been some years now since I read the book, but if I remember correctly he made a convincing case that many people who work for evangelical institutions and sign “statements of faith” affirming their belief in biblical inerrancy do not in fact believe in biblical inerrancy. If true that would seem to present some rather serious problems for both institutional evangelicalism and biblical inerrancy.
Yup, he was attacking his own Fuller Theological Seminary. Not exactly a bastion of liberalism, but not fundamentalist enough for his taste.
Your intro here got me very excited about learning more of this. Please do write your book.
Of course, *we* know that “do not eat weasels” *actually* means “do not have oral sex.”
So Barnabas says!
Matthew has Jesus teach against the law in the sermon on the mount – and also later.
The law allows people to divorce, Jesus teaches this would be adultery
The law allows oaths to be made, Jesus teaches never to make oaths
The law says an eye for an eye – Jesus says this is a wrong teaching and you shouldn’t resist evil.
I think the line “do not think I have come to abolish the law … ” indicates, as elsewhere in Matthew, that Jesus and his disciples were at least accused of teaching against/breaking the law during his ministry.
Matthew seems to be the only one of the gospels who at least attempts to reconcile Jesus’s teaching with the law.
I don’t see these as teaching against the law. Jesus never says, The Law says do not commit murder, but I say you do. What he says is that if you want *really* to keep the law you will go beyond the literal, surface meaning and get to the heart of the matter. If the law says the punishment should fit the crime, and not exceed it (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; rather than, your head for my tooth), Jesus says you should go a step further and show mercy (turn the other cheek). He *never* takes a law in the other direction (not an eye for an eye but two eyes and an ear for an eye….)
This similar to “building a fence around the Torah”, right?
That was the Pharisees’ explicit approach, and the historical Jesus was not a fan. It’s a bit different with him, I think, though possibly the intent is very similar (interesting point: thanks!). He wasn’t so much defining what specifically could and could not be done to ensure the law was literally followed. He was trying to get to the heart of the law and saying you should be interested in intent, motivation, and the real point rather htan the literal observation. If you see what I mean. A bit different.
He doesn’t think the law in its entirety is wrong – just some of it.
Eye for an eye is retribution, Jesus goes in the opposite direction. no retribution and turn the other cheek.
The law says you can give your wife a certificate of divorce – Jesus says you cant.
The law says fulfill your oaths to god – Jesus says no oaths and anything more than yes or no comes from the evil one.
He’s teaching people to set aside parts of the law.
Not really. The Old Testament doesn’t *require* you to divorce your wife or to swear oaths. It limits the times to do these things. Jesus limits them further. If you do what he tells you to do you do *not* break what the Law says. So he is not telling his followers to do away with the law. He’s telling you to keep it more fully. (If there was a law that said: Do not commit adultery with more than seven people a month, and someone came along and said Do not commit adultery at all, that person would *not* be doing away with the law. They would be making it more extreme, thinking that this is really the ultimate point)
I don’t know, if the law teaches you to only worship one god and jesus teaches you to worship no gods, I don’t think he could be described as just preaching a further limitation.
The teachings on murder and adultery are further limitations, but he is teaching against the law on divorce, oaths and eye for an eye.
When he says “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning”, he’s teaching that part of the law is man-made.
Yes, that would be different — and it would be precisely the kind of thing Jesus is NOT doing when he talks about the law. The law specifically directs people to worship the God of Israel. If Jesus said not to do so, it would ve a violation on the law. The law eoes not REQUIRE a person to have a divorce or to swear an oath. So when Jesus says not to, he’s not telling anyone to break the law.
woudl you agree that whenever jesus said to love x or y, he is limited by the FIRST commandment ? the first commandment says not to have any other god beside god. so the way you show loyalty to your god is by listening and obeying him, jesus was not for the rights of all religions, do you agree? do you agree that jesus would hate hated idol worshipers ? i am sure he would have hated the person than the act because the act is not even independant, it is dependant on what your mind wants. it makes no sense to say “jesus hates minds” it does make sense to say jesus HATES the actual person, do you agree?
I don’t think Jesus equated “love” with “worship.” Loving a neighbor is not equivalent, in his mind, to worshiping the person ahead of God.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also”
surely this cannot mean, if anyone strikes you with a weapon , then turn the other cheek or does it?
what if someone strikes and teeth fall out ? it doesn’t seem to me that jesus is doing away with the punishment laws in torah, otherwise their would be broken teeth and jaws and people would have no right to justice. do you agree?
if for example there is one with broken jaw and broken teeth and the law says do not exceed the punishment, but jesus comes along and says “show mercy” then has the law for punishment been broken?
Yup, Jesus seems to have meant to submit to violence. That’s one reason most Christians don’t actually do what he tells them to do!
that would mean broken jaws, broken eye socket , broken teeth….
the torah says that their is punishment for this, jesus says forget about your rights . who is right?
Jesus was reading the OT not as *requiring* punishment but as *limiting* it. Other Jews could well have said that no, you’re doing more than that, but he and his followers would disagree.
Dr. Ehrman
As you have said on other occasions
Christians needed antiquity because in ancient world people liked ancient stuff. Religions had to be old to be acceptable. That’s one of the reasons Christians kept the old testament.
It makes sense but since it’s not an easy task to reconcile the God of Hebrew bible with the God of Jesus and Paul ( like unifying the general relativity with quantum field theory),
was there ever any attempt by Christians to rewrite the old testament to make it suit their agenda or did they simply have bigger problems to deal with? Christians redacted , changed and modified their own scripture, so why didn’t they do that with the old scripture? Could they have kept the Genesis, the prophesies, some of the commandments and have exclueded whichever part they didn’t like?
There’s not a lot of evidence of Christian scribes altering the texts of the Old Testament — at least I can’t think of any off hand…
no need for the christian scribes to alter the text of the old testament. the septugent did the damage already. translating misriam as egypt placed the children of isreal in that country while no trace of moses and his followers could be found there.
Since very few Gentiles could read Hebrew, it would not be necessary for Christian scribes to alter the text of the Old Testament in order to change its meaning as far as Gentile Christians were concerned; that could easily be accomplished simply by altering the vernacular translations. A good example of this occurs in some translations of Genesis 3:15, where God curses the serpent who tempted Eve. A fairly literal translation of the Hebrew says, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall strike your head, and you shall strike his heel.” But early Latin translations of this passage changed the last part to say, “SHE shall strike your head, and you shall strike HER heel.” This was then reinterpreted to refer the “she” of this verse not to Eve but rather to Mary the mother of Jesus, with the result that even today some Catholic churches have stained glass windows showing a triumphant Mary standing with her foot on the head of a defeated snake.
I don’t think the fact that teh Jewish Bible was in Hebrew, would require Christian scribes to alter its *meaning*. It would require them to translate it into Greek. (Or Latin) That can be done accurately.
Much of what Jesus taught wouldn’t make any sense without the OT passages he was influenced by, or the Jewish history he was reacting to. The problem with including the OT is that most Christians didn’t have the context to understand it then (and probably still true today, though at least the resources are there for those who want to try.)
What was the alternative–footnotes? Appendixes? The NT authors didn’t have any of those tools. They were writing what they thought of as a continuation of the OT story. Whether the original authors of the OT books would have agreed with that is beside the point, since I’m pretty sure most of the OT authors wouldn’t have entirely agreed with each other either. Judaism isn’t all of a piece, any more than Christianity is. All religions are a process of accretion, with some ideas taking precedence in certain times and places.
A bit like Windows software–with all the inherent bugs. But starting from scratch just isn’t an option with an operating system in wide use, which in a sense is what The Bible is–arguably for all three Abrahamanic faiths. Muhammad sure put a lot of the OT and NT into the Qu’ran.
besides the nt and ot the quran also relates a story from the infancy gospel of thomas, when jesus as a child made birds from clay and order them to fly. and they flew.
Please write this book. This could be one of the most important books you’ve done yet. I’m not aware of anyone who has examined this issue in the manner you are outlining here. This needs to be written, in my humble opinion.
Your discussion focuses on the ethical and moral dimensions of Jesus’s life and teaching, and how the New Testament attempted to portray and embody those teachings in the Gospels. It seems to me however that any understanding of how Christianity appropriated the Old Testament must begin with an understanding of the very central role of the cult of sacrifice in the Jerusalem Temple. You and others have argued, convincingly I believe, that Christianity began as a Jewish sect, continuing to follow the Jewish moral and dietary laws, but also continuing to participate in the sacrificial rites of the Jerusalem Temple. Jesus never, as far as I know, repudiated such participation. I assume therefore that it continued for the Jerusalem church until the traumatic event of A.D. 70, when the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed. The vital heart of Jewish religious life was destroyed. Judaism itself had to be reinvented in its early rabbinic form, focusing on the synagogue and the study of the Torah. It was not possible to offer sacrifices to God any place other than in the Temple of Jerusalem. Once the Temple was gone, the theological and ethical meaning of the sacrificial rites there no longer had any empirical referent, and meaning could subsequently imposed upon those rites, and upon the written texts which supported those rites, which would not have been the implicit understanding of anyone who actually participated in those rites.
Jacob Milgrom’s brilliant commentary, “Leviticus”, offers a clear example of this. From page 30 on “The Purification Offering”. “The first question to ask is naturally: who or what is being purified? Surprisingly, it is not the person with the moral or physical impurity…. The telling clue is the designation of the blood of the sacrifice. It is not smeared on the offerer: it is smeared rather on the altar. Thus the first principle: blood is a ritual cleanser that purges the altar of the impurities inflicted on it by the offerer.” The sacrifices at the Jerusalem Temple, in Milgram’s understanding of this, purified the Temple, so that God would remain there. This distinction is, in my opinion, completely unknown to most contemporary Christians, and was probably lost rapidly to the early Christian church, particularly the church outside of Jerusalem itself, after the destruction of the temple. Christians could no longer sacrifice at the Temple. How would they then understand the sacrifice of Jesus’s death and with that reinterpretation the Old Testament?
Very interesting indeed. Many thanks. I don’t know if we can say for certain that the Jerusalem Christians continued sacrifice until 70, but I suspect you’re right. One of the big issues, of course, is that Jerusalem was not dictating what Christianity was like elsewhere — and it was most growing elsewhere. That’s why, in my view, it is important to know how many Jews were actually converting in those early years, as opposed to pagans. Contrary to a lot of scholars, I suspect that already by 70 the church was largely gentile. And so the question would be: what influence did Jerusalem have on the rest? Not an easy question.
I see (at least) 2 major problems with Christians holding onto the Old Testament as divine scripture: 1) many of the laws are just terrible! Selling your daughter as a slave, or executing disobedient children, for just a few of many examples. 2) God is often portrayed as cruel, arbitrary and unjust. The God of the OT was very much like a typical arrogant earthly king, not a divine transcendent being. One of my major reasons for departing from the church was when I read through the OT for myself. If there was a church of Marcion today, maybe I’d still be a member! Although it sounds like his theology was darkened by some anti-Semitic thoughts, and I wouldn’t abide that.
Regarding executing disobedient children, the Bible requires that both the father and mother have to agree to this, lessening the likelihood of it being carried out. Dennis Prager makes the further observation that the parents have to bring the kid to the town elders and they’re the ones who make the decision on whether or not to execute. In effect, this law outlaws honor killings and thus protects disobedient children. I might add that the Talmud says this law was never carried out and never will be.
So two (hopefully) straightforward questions (not trying to take you away from time spent on sipping Ouzo):
1. Is there actual evidence that Marcion rejected gMatt, or is that mainly a deductive conclusion?
2. Regarding Marcion’s favorite gospel, can Luke 24:44 be interpreted as referring to the “entire Hebrew Scriptures” as found in the Protestant OT, or is this an anachronistic idea.
Think of my question more like a drinking game … one Ouzo shot after each question. 🙂
Yeah, actually, I had a bad experience with Ouzo about 25 years ago (don’t ask), and so I haven’t touched the stuff for a very long time. I *will* say I think Greek wine has gotten much better over the years. Or maybe I can just afford better stuff now. But for heaven’s sake, avoid the Retsina.
The Church Fathers claimed Marcion used only Luke (which he edited to get rid of the parts he did not think were authentic) to the exclusion of others. It’s never been clear to me, but my *suspicion* (we don’t have a lot of evidence) is that Luke was the Gospel he was raised on and he didn’t know the others when he was first developing his thinking.
Luke 24:44 almost certainly refers to the entirely of the Hebrew Scriptures, but it’s not possible to figure out whehter all the books of the “Writings” (the third division of the Hebrew Bible) would have been included in Luke’s community (e.g., books such as Song of Solomon or Ecclesiastes); certainly the Torah and Prophets (both former and latter) would have been included, I should think.
Bart:
A couple of things bother me: 1. I don’t think “The Jews” in Jesus’ time had a “bible” per se. Probably not in Marcion’s time either. They had many scriptures, some of which [the NT refers to the Book of Enoch for example] didn’t make it into either canon. That objection is easily overcome by clarifying what you mean by the Jewish Bible at the time of Jesus etc.
2. More important: I don’t think it’s quite true to say ” it was absolutely, and literally, to be followed. All of it: circumcision; Sabbath observance; kosher food laws; festivals.” This was somewhat true of the Pharisees but not the Jews in general, many of whom did not live as strictly as the Pharisees wanted, whether they were kings like the Herods, or the uneducated “people of the land” — the lost sheep of the house of Israel, in Jesus’ parlance. Moreover, I don’t think “literally” is correct even for the Pharisees, especially those of the Hillel school, which already predominated by the 2nd c. One also thinks of Philo of Alexandria and his allegorical interpretations, or the rabbis of the early Talmudic periods whose non-literalistic approaches became authoritative as Oral Torah. And notably, by the time of Marcion, the entire corpus of sacrificial law had become obsolete. Also — a minor point — some festivals don’t come from the Bible [Hanukah for example].
Looking forward to the book though.
1. I would say that various Jewish communities *did* have “a” Bible (or rather a collection of books they called the Bible), but that the edges of the collection (in the part called “the Writings”) would have differed from one community to another. In other words, there was not ONE collection of books that everyone agreed on, but virtually all did agree on the Torah and both the Former and Latter Prophets.
2. There were certainly Jews who did not believe in a literal interpretation at all — e.g., the ones Philo attacks. But I would say that even the Jews who held to what we might think of as creative interpretations (e.g., Essenes with their Pesharim or Philo with his allegorical interpretations; and certainly the Pharisees and Sadducees; and oi polloi as well) thought that the literal reading was very much important, esp. when it came to the laws themselves. Philo insists that even though the figurative is of utmost importance, you *still* have to keep the literal laws.
I think it boils down to the question, in today’s terms, of observant vs. non-observant Jews. I take the view that the people to whom Jesus ministered were not observant, and these were probably the majority. His own disciples were typical of this group, having to ask questions that literate Jews would never ask such as “why do the Scribes say Elijah must come first”? I think they were the silent majority, so I react to generalizations about “The Jews” that doesn’t give them enough credit IMO.
I did a search Regarding 1 & 2 Timothy in the blog and found “forger-who-was-caught-the-case-of-salvian” who confessed to the Forgery in about 400 ce. This seems to be late As I assumed most of the canon was already established
Are there any manuscripts of Timothy earlier than this?
In which of your trade books cover of this subject?
I’m listening on Audible “forgery and counter forgery” as well as “ misquoting Jesus”. I highly recommend both. I continue to be amazed by your Energy and talents.
You must drive the fundamentalists absolutely crazy.????
Yes, Salvian was writing in the fifth century, and the Pastorals were found in earlier manuscripts (e.g., the fourth-century codex Sinaiticus)
I am trying to discuss the forgery of 1-2 Timothy w a friend. Which of your books cover this issue? Please refer to a chapter since your books are so comprehensive I might get lost trying to find it.
Thanks so much
The simple discussion is in Forged pp. 93-104; a more sustained and scholarly treatment is in Forgery and Counterforgery pp. 192-217.
Has anyone ever compiled a listing of the many verses in the Old Testament that Christianity uses to connect those verses to the coming of Jesus? Also, who is most likely responsible for those connections and when were they most likely made?
Yes, I’m sure there are lots of books like this, though I don’t know of any by name. Should be easy enough to find. Don’t know if there are any that list one after the other with brief explanations. Eveyrone, of course, would have different lists! There was no one figure we can point to who started this process. It was already firmly in place by the time Paul was writing in the 50s, and continued on, sometimes in highly imaginative ways down to the middle ages (Genesis 1: when God said “Let US create man” he must have been talking to Jesus; Genesis 3, when got made the “britches” for Adam and Eve, to replace their fig leaves, he must have had to sacrifice an animal, which foreshadowed the sacrifice of his Son Jesus later; etc. etc…)
What would be the Moon without the Sun?
Well, technically, non-existent! I guess that’s your point. Unless you wanted me to say: Part of Mars.
HaHa… got the first point..
and part of the other one: let’s have fun! (Unless you wanted me to say: Part of Mars 🙂 )
As it is fun to enjoy the games of words with the Hebrew teachings… as for them Moshe’s Torah is known as the Sun.. Josue’s book, is known as the Moon …
let’s have fun exploring it all! 🙂
Dr. Ehrman: Christian apologists often say “slavery” in the OT didn’t mean slavery in the sense of what the US saw before the Civil War. Rather, it meant indentured servitude, and when the slave debt was paid, the “slave” was free. Thus, the OT/God didn’t condone “slavery”. Seems a rationalization for the apologists? Does the word “slavery” in the OT literally mean what it says in the original/copy texts? Thanks!
I don’t have any books with me just now, but my sense is that in addition to indentured servitude there was real ownership. (There is, of course, in the New Testament). But maybe someone can look it up and tell me: I don’t have any verses springing to mind offhand.
To his credit, Marcion at least put forth by far the most (indeed, the ‘only’, in my estimation) plausible explanation for why god needed a ‘do-over’ after a 1,000 years or so of a flawed covenant – and why he let the world suffer for thousands of years before he ‘sent’ Jesus.
Why didn’t Jesus show up right after the serpent did his dirty work?
Why would Matthew include this in his writing if he wasn’t following the Law himself?
I would assume he was.
Do you think Matthew was Jewish or a converted Gentile who followed the Law?
I sometimes flip a coin. Usually tails wins (Gentile). But I don’t really know.
Bart! Please read the short little book called “Hebrew Yeshua vs the Greek Jesus”. You may find it somewhat amusing —and perhaps may find value to glean from it in regards to the book you’ve worked on. Maybe, maybe not. There is even a youtube video the encapsulates its jist. The main issue was Matthew chapter 15. All they* (Pharisees) say vs all he* (Moses) says. Kind of interesting how it is kind of ignored —or at least marginalized —and yet a Karaite Jew (born into Rabbinical Judaism not Christianity) is of the few I’ve seen address it. The book also highlights customs of Rabbis and suggests that Jesus, to him, seems like a 1st century Karaite/”Scripturalist”. (Not an unintentional anachronism)
Another point in your favor was that Peter was fervently on the side of the Jewish law. However, I understand I have not heard your whole argument, but, to me, the hardest part about this project would be to show that Jesus showed a strict adherence to the “literal” law. I’ve always been taught that Jesus ‘re-interpreted’ the law or at least that he read the law through the lens of “love god and love your neighbor.” I don’t see anything in the New Testament that contradicts this. In fact, the “eye for an eye” verse seems give support to it. I know very committed liberal Christians who would say they adhere to the words of the bible, but not to the literal interpretation. Jesus seems like a ‘liberal’ Jew to me. However, that could also be because that is how I’ve been taught to read it.
Yes, it’s a tricky business. But Jesus never tells anyone to *disobey* the law; he insists that htey follow it more rigorously. So when it says an “eye for an eye” he doesn’t say, no, it’s OK to crucify someone who has gouged out your eye, just as he doesn’t say, that if the Law says you should not murder, I say you should.
That is a terrific point. I’m going to press the issue just a bit because I think it might be helpful when considering this question in your book. If you don’t find it helpful, please feel free to move on. I won’t be offended.
Working with my Christian analogy – I don’t know many Christians who would say you should disobey the New Testament. What they would do is make up some excuse as to why what was said doesn’t really apply today, i.e., “Paul told the church in Corinth that women must remain quiet because there were women there who were interrupting the service – this doesn’t apply to everyone”, or, my favorite on the evangelical side, “Jesus was actually talking about a gate called the eye of the needle which we have absolutely no evidence for. Of course it is o.k. to be rich.” Further, if they do disagree with the NT, they might not say so directly. Most liberal Christians don’t like the gospel of John with Jesus specifically saying that you must believe in him. However, they don’t straight up disagree, they just talk around it.
This seems like what Jesus did with the woman caught in adultery. He never contradicted the Hebrew Bible by saying don’t stone her. But he did imply it. He never actually said that you should work on the Sabbath and disobey Deuteronomy 5:14, but it seems he redefines what he thinks work is. To me, the closest he comes to directly disagreeing with the HB is in Mk 7 when he “declared all food clean.”
My point: I think a good argument could be made that Jesus treats the Hebrew Bible much like Christians treat the NT – strictly adhere to those things you like, redefine those things you don’t.
Yes, possibly. I would extend the argument further to say that there is *no* objective understanding of the Old Testmanet or any other book that does not also involve some form of interpretatoin of it. (BTW: the story of hte woman taken in adultery was not originally in the NT; it was added by a later scribe! I’ve posted about that on the blog before, if you want to look it up)
Dr Ehrman: Just a hypothetical question. What would have happened if the Christians HAD NOT co-opted the Hebrew Scriptures into their version of the Bible? What if the Book of Genesis had simply been disregarded by Christians as a book of Jewish mythology? Where, then, would they have gotten their Creation story? From the Romans, perhaps? How different would our culture be today without Genesis, etc. in the Bible?
Great questions!! I wish we knew. (the Christian theologian Marcion, who rejected the OT, thought the world was created by an inferior divine being who botched it very badly indeed)
Interesting that the Demiurge might now be thought of as the Creator of the Universe (it does explain how much of human history has gone wrong). But how could Michelangelo have painted him on the Sistine ceiling?Or Masaccio
in the Brancacci Chapel instead of Adam and Eve? It is stunning to think of how much of Western art and literature derives from Genesis alone!
Yup! But I’d say that Michaelangelo and Masaccio would not have done their work if Genesis ad continued to remain Jewish and not Christian. (E.g., Jews never understood the story of Adam and Eve as the disastrous “fall” that Christians argued.)
Had brunch with a friend of yours Micheal Gorman . Small world . The more I listen to you the more Jewish you sound or noahide. I listen to rabbis’ tovia singer and Micheal Skobac and historically you sound alike , even counter missionary with proof texts . I like it I’m surprised your agnostic . I’m glad to see people who think there are problems with what we been taught and try to get to the truth without reinterpreting scripture to justify a mistake .
Yup, we go way back. Ended up moving in nearly opposite directions, but have remained very friendly all these years. When I was thinking about leaving the Christian faith I did indeed consider becoming Jewish. But then I realized I did’nt believe in God at all, and Judaism was simply not my own culture.
Great post and comments. I learn more about the history of my heritage daily. Thanks!
I never really took Jesus’ words in Matthew 5 to mean we must continue to follow the laws of the OT. Jesus said he’s come to fulfill the law. He was going to take care of it (fulfill the requirements), but until then (his crucifixion) we must keep the law of the OT and teach others the same. I figured that was everyone’s take on it. Well, apparently I’m wrong, but anything else would be contradictory to the new wine (new law) that was coming. Even Matthew talks about the new wine (9:14 – 17). Following Jesus and his ‘new wine’ is more righteous than all the man made rules of the scribes and Pharisees. Wasn’t he just doing his ‘read between the lines’ conversation he liked to do? Like if you don’t eat my flesh and drink my blood type conversation?
Yup, that’s how it’s usually taught these days. But if you read the text carefully, it’s not what Jesus says.
Glad to be on your blog . This is the first time I’ve ever posted anything on a blog. I’m fascinated with the importance of the history of Christianity. I’ve often argued with some Christian friends why they don’t abide by the dietary and other bizarre practices set forth in Leviticus , etc. for example they will argue that homosexuality is an abomination but seem to have no reluctance to eat shellfish. When I point out that those passages are on the same page and inquire why one is correct and the other not, I have had unconvincing answers . Can you tell me what the best argument would be for a Christian to try and rectify the incongruity.
When I was a Christain I tried to reconcile it by saying that some of the laws were given to help out the Israelites in the times of their ignorance (poor Israelites….). And so they had misconceptions and God catered to them, or gave them fair warning (e.g., don’t eat pork). (Everyone says that’s because raw pork will kill you; but notice, he doesn’t say don’t eat chicken!) Other laws, I argued, were eternal. How did I know which were which? The ones I agreed with were the ones that were eternal!
I’ve heard the explanation that the OT laws that were priestly or cultural were no longer needed but the ones that were moral laws remained. I still have problems as how one decides between some of them!
To me, they jettisoned the ones that they either didn’t like or inhibited evangelizing…kind of arbitrary to me.
Returning to the theme of my prior post, it is not the impact of Jewish Christianity on Gentile Christianity which may be relevant, but rather the impact of Judaism on Gentile Christianity. Prof. Oskar Skarsaune, in his IN THE SHADOW OF THE TEMPLE, p. 82, asserts that “when the gospel message was first addressed to Gentiles it was addressed primarily to these groups”, i.e. “God – fearers”, “and among them it found a wide hearing”. Who were the “God- fearers”. Pagans who attended synagogues in the Jewish Diaspora who no longer found spiritual significance or meaning in traditional pagan polytheism nor in any of the newer mystery religions coming to the Mediterranean at the time. What did they hear in the synagogue – – reading and exposition of the Torah and ritual prayers. There they learned that the God of Israel was holy, unlike pagan deities, and intolerant of human moral or physical pollution. Indeed to approach Israel’s God, except through sacrifice, was actually quite dangerous. They also learned that they could not approach Israel’s God since Israel’s God had an exclusive relationship with Israel, unavailable to anyone except Jews. Conversion to Judaism, however, was difficult and rare, not simply because of the dietary restrictions, but also because of the requirement of male circumcision, painful and aesthetically repugnant to most Greek speaking non-Jewish men. Inherent in this situation – – a great psychological tension and conflict. On the one hand, hunger for a safe and meaningful way to approach a holy God. On the other hand except through conversion, inability to satisfy that hunger. The Christian message, at least in its Pauline version, offered a solution. I think however that the real spiritual breakthrough moment for God-fearers, must have been the crisis for Judaism of 70 A.D. God-fearers who had not yet converted to Christianity but continued to attend the synagogue would have certainly known of this crisis. The temple at Jerusalem was destroyed. The sacrificial rites offered twice a day on Israel’s behalf had ended. God’s earthly dwelling was gone. Where was God and how could God, holy God, now be safely approached. Israel’s answer was a reemphasis of Jewish identity with commitment to more intense study of the Torah and a more rigorous application of Jewish law in personal life. The Christian answer was belief in Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross, the meaning of which was confirmed by his resurrection, clearly more preferable for God-fearers.
I”ve never been a huge fan of the “God-fearers” hypothesis. There certainly were some gentiles here and there who sympathized with Jewish views. But I see no evidence that they were a large (let alone coherent) group, even though scholars talk about them as if they were an established fact. My view is that scholars invented them as a fact because it helped make sense of their theories of the expansion of Christianity, not because they are well documented.
Does the following from the Wikipedia article on the “Second Temple” suggests otherwise regarding the God-fearers. This article discusses a part of the Temple which Herod reconstructed as the “Court of the Gentiles”. Of greater interest to me, under the section, “Archaeology” was the following: “in 1871, a hewn stone measuring 60X 90 cm and engraved with Greek uncials was discovered near a court on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and identified… as being the Temple Warning inscription. The stone inscription outlines the prohibition extending unto those who were not of the Jewish nation to proceed beyond the soreg separating the larger court of the Gentiles and the inner courts…. Translation:’ let no foreigner enter within the parapet and the partition which surrounds the Temple precincts. Anyone caught violating will be accountable for his ensuing death’ “. Why would Gentiles not deeply interested in Jewish faith and religious practice come to the Temple in Jerusalem? Does anything you know of suggests that the Temple was simply another stop in a grand tour of interesting sites in antiquity for the affluent Greek speaking population of the time on vacation? It seems to me that the archaeological evidence suggests a much larger group of Greek speaking non-Jews highly motivated to make the expensive and probably dangerous journey to Jerusalem seeking a more immediate experience, insofar as that was possible, of the religious rites practiced at the Temple. In other words, the God-fearers.
The Wikipedia article on the ” Temple Warning inscription” states that two of these tablets have been found and that ” both Greek and Latin inscriptions on the temple’s balustrade served as warnings to pagan visitors not to proceed under penalty of death. ” The references for this last assertion includes something from Josephus: Of the War, Book V. as well as an article by Elias Bickerman : The Jewish Quarterly Reiew, v. 37, no, 4, pp387-405.
A warning in Latin to pagans on Temple walls not to enter too far into the temple— doesn’t that imply a rather large group of pagans?
No, the court of the Gentiles is not evidence of “God-fearers.” It’s just the place where curious gentiles could come to check out the splendor of the place. Just like there are times / places where visitors can come into Mosques, or Mormon temples, and so on, I shold think.
Dr Ehrman –
Do you mean you are skeptical of (a) God-Fearers as a historical phenomenon per se, and/or (b) the use of God-Fearers as a hand-waving catch-all that smuggles in the false appearance of a concept doing a lot of heavy lifting in an argument? Would you mind unpacking your thoughts on God-Fearers a touch more (or point me towards suggested further reading)?
Both I guess. I’m not confident that we have much evidence of a large number of gentiles adopting most but not all the practices of Judaism, let alone that these were targets of the mission of the early church. For the former, I just don’t think there’s much evidence. For the latter, the early evidence (Paul, Acts) points in the opposite directoin.
Thanks – very interesting! I’ve recently been listening to Goodman’s “History of Judaism” as well as Fredriksen’s “When Xns Were Jews” and “Paul: Pagan’s Apostle” on audiobook, and the ancient synagogue donation inscriptions get referenced as if gospel (pun intended) around the existence of God-Fearers (explicitly in Fred., more implicit in Good.), as a historical phenomenon and a category concept. Your skepticism about the lack of evidence makes me ask myself why I was so readily accepting of them as a relevant class of (potential) early church participant.
Re: the negative evidence in Paul/Acts against them being a target rich environment for proselytizing – thanks, that hadn’t yet occurred to me in that way.
Re: existence, are there any studies or sources you rec one read that cast a strongly critical eye towards God-Fearers (at their existence per se, or at the conceptual leap that these people who were inscribed as donating were deep into Jewish practices)?
The classic study that called them into doubt was: Kraabel, A. T., “The Disappearance of the ‘God-fearers,'” Numen 28 (1981), pp. 113-26.
Thanks for the rec!
Finally, God-fearers who converted to Christianity would have wanted to keep the Jewish Torah, having understood its spiritual and moral significance through long exposure in synagogue attendance, but now reinterpreting the Jewish Torah through the lens of Christian belief in Jesus. Also they would have continued to attend the synagogue which actually had a physical Torah, an expensive and probably not widely owned physical object not usually available in personal homes or to many people. I have read that Christian worship in the synagogue alongside Jews continued at least throughout the second century A.D.
You have written that acceptance of stories of miracles done in Jesus name and their demonstration of the power of Jesus’s God was the factor driving the expansion of early Christianity. This is what our early texts say. That does not mean to me that that was the real causal factor. Humans of the first century did not have a very sophisticated understanding of human psychology and therefore the reasons that they offered to themselves explaining their own behavior were often, by contemporary standards, psychologically not very good. The motivating factor in changing one’s religion because one hears the story of miracles about someone else, in my opinion, is not psychologically very compelling. On the other hand, the hunger for a connection to God, often an unconscious hunger, articulated in a language of sacrifice familiar in one form to pagans and in another form to Jews, and the satisfaction of that hunger— now you have a real reason for giving up one religion and adopting another.
The Christian answer to satisfying that hunger is interesting: first the Pauline version, belief in Jesus’s sacrificial death and resurrection, and an eschatological wish for his imminent return, but then gradually transformed into a cultic reenactment of sacrifice, the early common Christian meal sharing bread and wine in Jesus’s name being transformed into a sacred reenactment of sacrifice, conducted by an anointed and spiritual elite– priests– permitting after confession man to safely approach a holy God by actually eating God.
I don’t know, not being a historian of early Christianity, when the surviving literary sources document that gradual transformation. I would be very interested in hearing from you your understanding of this historical issue.
I see that my comment from a couple of days ago didn’t get posted. Did I do something wrong?
I don’t know. I don’t recall not posting one from you. Maybe try it again, and if I see something wrong, I’ll let you know! (The only comments I don’t post are repeats — when someone already said the same thing in a comment the same day — or ones that are a bit too snarky or gratuitously political or otherwise potentially offensive; that rarely happens.)
Back when I used to be a practicing Christian I never took the passage in Matthew to mean we are to still follow the ‘old law’. My interpretation was when Jesus said he came to fulfill the law then that would be the end of the ‘old way’. Of course the fulfillment would come on the cross, so he did mean that they were to keep the law up until that time. The writer of Matthew was aware that there would be a ‘new way’ as indicated in chapter 9, the story of the new and old wine. Therefore following Jesus would be ‘more righteous’ than the scribes and Pharisees. I took this passage in Matthew as if Jesus was saying ‘read between the lines’. The same as when he told people to cut off the hands if they caused them to sin or pluck out their eyes. I guess I was thinking that this is the way that everybody read these passages. Anything else would be contradiction, as you’ve pointed out….
Do you know how often the idea of following the Old Testament laws have been rediscovered? I know that there have been popular movements in Sweden occasionally to keep the Saturday as Sabbath among peasants, and a few cases during the 16th century of people who decided that Judaism was the true religion based on reading the Bible. (There being no real Jews to interact with, their version of Judaism probably was a little different from the usual one.)
I’m not sure: there certainly were groups of Christians doing that throughout the first five centuries of Christianity. Whether it continued in an unbroken path — I’m afraid I don’t know!
Do you have a chronological list for the books of the old testament (i.e. order which they were first written)? IIRC you had one for the new testament in “The New Testament: A Historical Introduction,” so I was wondering if you also had one for the old.
Both lists are debated, in part because some of the books are almost impossible to date confidently (Job; Psalms; Proverbs; etc.). But I give some indications in my textbook The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction.
What’s the difference between God becoming a human in the OT (as the Angel of the Lord), and God as human (Jesus)?
Some scholars have said Jesus in the NT only carried his name such as the Angel of the Lord. The Angel wasn’t God, but carried his name and power. Isn’t Jesus considered fully God in the NT, not just carrying his name?
For most theologians the difference is that the Angel of the Lord was a manifetation of God on earth in human form, not a full incarnation as a human.