(11 votes, average: 4.91 out of 5)
Loading...Nine years ago when I was discussing on the blog the topic of the current thread — the wide diversity of early Christianity — I took the occasion to mention a book that I had just read and found to be unusually interesting and enlightening. It is by two Italian scholars, married to each other, who teach at the Università di Bologna: Adriana Destro, an anthropologist, and Mauro Pesce, a New Testament specialist whose teaching position is in the History of Christianity.
Their book is called Il racconto e la scrittura: Introduzione alla lettura dei vangeli. It is about all the things I am currently interested in: the life of Jesus as recounted by his earliest followers, the oral traditions of Jesus, and the Gospels as founded on these oral traditions. In it they develop a theory that I had never thought of before. I’m not sure all the evidence is completely compelling, but the overall view is very interesting and very much worth thinking about. As an anthropologist, Prof Destro looks at things in ways differently from most of us who are text-people; and she and Prof. Pesce together apply these thoughts to our early Christian writings.
The aspect of their book of particular relevance to this thread on the diversity of early Christianity has to do with the evidence found in our Gospels themselves that different followers of Jesus from the very beginning – the VERY beginning – may have had different perspectives on who he was, what he taught, what he meant, and why he was important.
What the two of them do is focus on the places mentioned in the Gospels. There are two sets of data that are interesting:
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 is an extremely interesting thread about not only the general diversity in early Christianity but the specific diversities in the NT itself. I don’t recall you writing about this in the blog before.
Do you know of anyone who has plausibly argued that orthodoxy “at least” did a significantly better job than any heresy of integrating many of the disparate threads in the NT/earliest Christian writings around what might “objectively” be called their central and most prominent themes—as well as minimizing the Greek ideas not found in the NT?
I suppose that would require too much subjective judgement (and invite too much “fuzzy” thinking) for there to be a broadly persuasive argument to that effect. But I don’t see how orthodoxy’s defenders could reasonably argue much more than that.
Yes, I would say that this is the view of most conservative Christian scholars, evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox.
That’s a fair answer to the actual question I asked. But I wouldn’t expect fundamentalists, evangelicals, and conservative Catholics to say any less than that. They probably say a lot more.
I guess I’m wondering whether what I described is a common (but not necessarily dominant) view among historical-critical NT scholars, ie, scholars that strive to make arguments that are more objective and impartial.
Seriously historical scholars try to look at every issue from all sides and reach a conclusion that appears to be most sensible in light of the evidence, whether it is what they personally came into the study with that view or not.
More very interesting material, Dr. E.
Do you read Italian?
Yeah, well I did back then. (!) It’s been years. I learned it because I had to read a some things for my book Forgery and Counterforgery.
Hi Bart,
As a layman, it seems clear to me that you are correct that Pilate would not have been the least bit reluctant to order the crucifixion of Jesus. Does this reflect a consensus of NT scholars generally? (Excluding of course any who take the Bible to be without error, etc.) If so, can you point me to someone else who has written that this is the consensus? I know the reasons you have given and find them very persuasive, including the historical trend of sources putting more blame on Jews and less and less on Pilate. But a friend of mine is claiming that most scholars (who are quite aware of the discrepancies and contradictions in the NT) nonetheless believe that Pilate really did crucify Jesus only because of the prompting of the Jewish leadership and/or crowd and that he would have preferred not to. So, I am only asking you about a consensus of scholars with the requisite credentials.
Yes, I think it is virtually a complete consensus. You might look at John Dominic Crossan’s book Who Killed Jesus.
This interesting conjecture enlarges the group of original followers from the 20 or so that you have argued came immediately to see Jesus as the resurrected Messiah. From those 20, all Christians learned the Good News, rapidly taking over the Roman religious world. This new idea suggests that several groups around the region of Samaria, Galilee, and Judea already followed Jesus and easily accepted the idea that he was resurrected and had been deified. How likely do you think it is that several widespread groups of people who had followed him because of his apocalyptic message “Repent because God’s kingdom is near,” would have been primed to accept the two notions that the Messiah had to suffer! and that the Jesus they had known WAS that Messiah? And how much would this speed up Christianity’s spread?
I’d say it doesn’t alter the idea that there were originally 20. Those in other regions who had known about him/heard him during his life would not have been able to hear about the resurrection of Jesus and “believe in him” until they had been told about it, and they would have been told about it either by the 20 in Jerusalem or by those converted by the 20. That must have been weeks/months/more later, once the word started to spread. I’d say anyone who believed Jesus was raised would be inclined at the moment to agree that his death had been planned by God and was some kind of sacrifice.
And those who heard and believed would be from different places, and naturally incorporated their memories and experiences into their beliefs and understandings. And as the Destro-Pesce thesis proposes, those separate experiences and memories were what became the plethora of understandings that got written down at some point, often without the influence of any other point of view. Fascinating to think about. Thank you.
So if one of the sources says he was active in a place, can we assume he was active there, whether or not there are contradictions in what he is said to have done? A parallel might be with your Washington story – they say he ‘slept there’ but is the ‘there’ more likely to be accurate than the ‘slept’? Thanks again for keeping my brain functional 🙂
I’d say it is certain that Washington slept but less certain that it was in one place or another. 🙂 But yes, one problem iwth the thesis of the book would be if one assumed that the stories of where Jeus was are necessarily therefore historical. Stories *about* him being in one place or another are certain; whether he really was there is another issue.
Interesting thesis, but it sort of stretches the imagination that Jesus could in fact have been active teaching and preaching all over the length and breadth of Palestine as is portrayed in the various Gospel accounts. I don’t know – I’ve never hiked all over Palestine myself, or even considered how likely or possible it was to do in his time, as you say. Maybe it is possible, but Jesus (apparently) had a very narrow window of time to accomplish all this teaching and preaching before his final week in Jerusalem. It does make sense, though, that in each geographical locale, his followers would have put their own spin and emphases on his words and activities, or that they may have heard and/or interpreted them differently in the context of their own surroundings.
Bart
Did you read Il Racconto in italian?admire your book voracity no end!! Their theory got me thinking about ^saints^ ..inAustralia the nuns founded by our ^only^ saint, Mary Mackillop love to point out places she visited, and endlessly record and narrate and research. No dogmas or belief systems, just a sort of celebrity following. In Jesus^ case in earlist times it makes sense that very little theology had yet developed but a sort of fascination with where he did this or that. That is so beautifully human, isint it?. Some places jesus went to like the exact place of his baptism or Tabor^s jesus possible hideout are not specified accurately and that could be partly due to nobody actually living there and no need to be too accurate or invent exact locations. Even today visitors to Palestine love to stand on places he may have been, build shrines. Very interesting and thank you.
Yes, I read it. I was working on my Italian at the time….
Yes, it’s an interesting idea, Dr Ehrman, but as the Gospel writers occasionally display poor geographical knowledge, eg. Mark 7:31, can we trust them to accurately pinpoint the areas where Jesus operated?
In my view? Nope.
Dr Ehrman,
Could you please elaborate on that passage in particular? I find it very odd that in Mark 7:24 Jesus is teleported out of the shores of the sea of Galilee to the vicinity of the cities of Tyre and Sidon on the Mediterranean coast, delivers a troubling one-liner there about dogs/gentiles eating the children’s bread, and then is immediately transported back to Decapolis in 7:31 following an odd northbound route.
It would be one of the rare instances before the Passion where he is not operating in his usual sparse rural environment of Galilee, and where he talks to a gentile audience (one single Syrophoenician Greek woman).
All of this to say, what do you think of that passage that stands out in the middle of the chapter?
I don’t have our previous discussion in front of me so I’m not sure what you’re asking. Is it why Jesus would travel from Gennesaret to the “region of Tyre and Sidon.” I don’t know. Jesus walks around a lot in Mark. The setting allows Mark to put in a story about Jesus’ encounter with a non-Jew.
Interesting. Very interesting, indeed. You indicate “They think that Jesus, during his public life, was active in a number of areas of Galilee and Samaria and the Transjordan.” My concern is time frame, though, as I think a pretty good argument can be made that a) Jesus’ entire ministry was much shorter than the generally accepted three year duration (maybe a year or less), and b) even if his itinerant preaching lasted almost 3 years, as supposed, that would have meant a near-endless travel schedule for the poor guy. Just seems unlikely (not much of a scholarly argument, admittedly!). Your thoughts on this?
I lean your way on that one. It’s an important bit of what we don’t actually know, where exactly was Jesus when? Still, the data they compile are interesting.
In Mark, the disciples misunderstand Jesus’s message all the time. Do you think this may be because Mark (the author of the gospel) disagreed with the disciples or their followers?
Some scholars have argued that. In their view Mark’s book is largely a polemic against the original followers of Jesus in favor of views that developed elsewhere. I used to be attracted to that view but now I don’t think it really explains the Gospel. They disciples are dull and take a long time to get it — and in fact never do — but I don’t think that’s to blast them per se, so much as to convey Marks ‘articular message of the “secret” of the Messiah.
Hello Dr Ehrman,
You made a comment that you may have discussed elsewhere in more detail:
“..in Matthew and Mark, it is quite clear that after his resurrection Jesus meets his (eleven) disciples in Galilee and only in Galilee, whereas in Luke, it is quite clear that he meets them in, and only in, Jerusalem.
I’ve always understood that even though they were instructed to go to Galilee, they first encountered the risen Christ in Jerusalem (first, because of their startled reaction), and then embarked to Galilee. Why should one assume that the disciples encounters with a risen Christ was either “only in” Jerusalem or “only in” Galilee?
Interesting analysis of how different followers of Jesus would have had a diversity of understandings of the teachings of Jesus. We still do today of course. Some see a pacifist Jesus, some an aggressive Jesus. Our individual views as well may become diverse over time as we evolve in our understanding of Jesus.
Ah. Read Luke carefully. Luke 24. Then Acts 1-2. When would they have left Jerusalem? Jesus, on the day of the resurrection (Luke 24) tells them NOT to leave. In Acts 1 they spend 40 days with him there. On Pentecost they are still there. Jesus has by this time long ascended to heaven. They haven’t left. So saying they first saw him in Jerusalem and *then* in Galilee is an attempt to reconcile the texts without paying attention to what they both actually say.
I think Luke clearly routed out any idea about the apostles leaving Jerusalem after the resurrection.
Is this because of theological reasons or because he knew that historically that was what really happened and so part of his target audience ?
This was a fun read. Destro and Pesce’s theory is like unearthing a bunch of old, dusty maps, revealing that each guide had their own favorite ‘Jesus was here’ spots. They weren’t just retelling stories; they were giving the ‘Top 10 Jesus Moments’ tour, each with their own flavor. It’s like every Gospel is a different sightseeing bus, showing off their unique route of Holy Land highlights. Makes you wonder if they had souvenir stands back then, selling ‘I followed Jesus in Galilee’ T-shirts!
Hello Bart. Speaking of the wide variety of early Christianities, can you recommend a good book on The Didache? Thanks.
I’d suggest you look at Clayton Jefford’s book on the Apostolic fathers, in his treatment of it, where he gives bibliography of other works to consider.
I see your point Dr Ehrman. Perhaps I have it reversed, in that the disciples went to Galilee first and then to Jerusalem.
Matthew 28 mentions their meeting on a mountain (Tabor?), but doesn’t mention the ascension.
According to Luke-Acts they never do leave Jerusalem to go to Galilee; in Matthew that’s what they do right off the bat. That’s the problem.
I have heard both clergy and lay people on podcasts claim that Jesus’ last instructions in Matthew came immediately prior to the Ascension. In neither case did they mention that the speech occurs in Galilee while the Ascension took place in Jerusalem. I was tempted to fire off a comment calling them out, but decided instead just to ponder such things in my heart :-).
Well, it happens in Jerusalem in Luke and in Acts at least (tho 40 days apart!). Maybe he was comin’ and goin’? But right, most people don’t think about the differences among the Gospels.
That sounds like a FASCINATING read. However, I’m inclined to think Jesus: A) didn’t teach for very long and B) didn’t travel nearly as much as the gospels claim. I’m not convinced of their overall argument as you described it. However, I DO find it very interesting that none of the gospels agree on the specific areas in which Jesus taught. Maybe the geographical areas selected by the gospel writers could provide us clues about the general area(s) of the person or persons who produced them? I.e. If Mark made a bunch of geographical errors or Luke wrote something that doesn’t make sense about a location, perhaps that indicates the author was probably not from that area?
Could be. But I’ve been going into nearby Raleigh for 30 years and god help me if someone asks me where something is located….
Thanks again for informing us of a new view. Are these maps online, or can they be pasted here?
I’ll have to look!
I tried looking for a translation. There does not seem to be one in English, though there is one in French under the title Le récit et l’écriture: Introduction à la lecture des évangiles (Labor et Fides, 2016).
I’ve wondered about movies showing Jesus being followed by an ever-growing crowd. It makes more sense that he taught disciples his message of repentance to prepare for the coming Son of Man and then sent them to spread the news, establishing groups in larger cities. This would have gone on for two or three years.
As often stated, none of the “12” were literate, so they couldn’t do what Paul did, write from afar correcting errant theologies. I was a member of the Unification Church and witnessed local variations in the group’s theology and practices. Rev. Moon sent senior missionaries from Korea to the US in the 1960s and each developed ministries along different lines – the one in San Francisco not even defining the group as religious, but rather a social improvement organization.
Rev Moon arrived in the US in the early 1970s and never really succeeded in “correcting” all the groups, despite thousands of hours of speeches and sanctioned books of the teachings. Now that he is dead, the group has splintered – one of his sons even includes guns in their worship (rod of iron, as it were).
Imagine 1st century Palestine!
Hey Bart I’ve actually been wondering about the origins of a “real presence” in the eucharistic meal. A lot of mainline protestants today will argue that the eucharistic meal was practiced by the earliest Christians as a purely symbolic memorial of Christ’s death. However, there are passages like Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 mentioning people who go ill and die for taking the meal unworthily, which leads me to believe there was some understanding of divine significance with the meal–and seems to echo the idea of the Ark killing the unworthy who touch it.
Was there a settled understanding of the nature of the eucharistic meal in the early Jerusalem church?
That passage is usually taken to indicate that God punishes pepole who don’t observe the supper in the proper way, not that there’s some kind of power in the bread and wine itself. The theme of God killing people for not behaving in proper ways, ritually or ethically, is a common theme in the Bible. Something like a “real presence” may be suggesgted by some texts in the second century but not as early as Paul.
Thanks for the reply. Would it be safe to say that in the 1st century there wasn’t any debate over whether or not there was a “real presence” in the blood and wine? I known Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 10:16, that there is a participation in the body and blood of Christ.
Regardless of whether or not there was any understanding of a real presence in Paul, is the language of body and blood that Paul is using to describe the meal, possibly something that Jesus may have historically used at the last supper?
Right — no debate yes. And I suppose most people think the saying may / does go back to Jesus. But I don’t think so. I don’t think Jesus expected to be crucified, let alone “for you”. The only hesitancy I have is that he may well have thought the game was up near the end and realized he might be arrested. In which case possibly he did talk about it? If so, though, I don’t think he wold have been discussing an act of atonement…. disabledupes{e2d5cfc0620087e3d0c61f316151389a}disabledupes
(To follow up on my own post to put it as a question)
If my assertion is plausible that the disciples first went to Galilee, and then to Jerusalem to witness the ascension, would that reconcile the discrepancy you mentioned in Matthew/Mark and Luke?
No, for reasons I’ve explained. IN Luke on the very day he’s resurrected Jesus tells the disciples not to leave Jerusalem; they are there until he ascends 40 days later; and even after that don’t go to Galilee. So the two accounts are at odds.
“different followers of Jesus from the very beginning – the VERY beginning – may have had different perspectives . . ”
Yes. I have such a strong conviction that human beings are human beings; by which I mean I differ from the often-used argument “you need to see this from the perspective of the people who lived back then.” I think WAY more often than not you can shed more light on many topics by asking what would we do NOW? Because that is probably what people in biblical times would have done. That’s my theory – theory, not hypothesis, as I believe there’s ample evidence that backs it (modest, huh?).
As an example, I would love to do an experiment: Visit people on a Sunday after they have been to church and ask them each 10 questions. All will have heard the same sermon that morning, but I am convinced you will find many differences in their interpretations. Visit them again a year later and ask them the same 10 questions. Even more differences will have arisen. To me that’s just very likely – now, and in the years 30 to 31 CE!
“That’s kind of like people in my old stomping grounds, Cranbury, New Jersey, being interested in saying “George Washington slept here, in this inn” (which, by the way, they do say, and which almost no one else, except for visitors to Cranbury, care at all about).”
Do you know of any followers or innkeepers who claim that *you* slept in this inn and at that bed? 🙂
Ha! Well, in theory they could prove I took my daughter there for a date on her seventh birthday, and that she drank a Shirley Temple in her gorgeous new dress!
Fascinating. Thank you for reprising this book and its thesis, especially for us who were not reading your blog in 2015 and cannot read Italian – it’s so intriguing that I’m unhappy there is no English translation (yet?).
Not to my knowledge!
Did Jesus preach that atonement was not required by God [in order for there to be a forgiveness of sin]? Is this idea part of the “Property Rights” view of western society?
Yes he did. And I don’t know!