I had a great time giving my lectures at the Smithsonian yesterday. Terrific crowd, very attentive, highly intelligent, great questions. And a completely exhausting day. Four lectures back to back is tough. So I came back to my room and did football, pizza, and beer all night, which was just what the doctor ordered. (I am a Dr., after all)
The first lecture, as I indicated in my previous post, was on the Infancy Gospels, or at least on two of them, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Proto-Gospel of James (Protevangelium Jacobi). I have already summarized some of the stories of the Infancy Gospel, and have pointed out the obvious, that on a casual reading Jesus certainly seems to be a bit of a brat. Or at least a miracle-working son of God who as an immature boy does not seem to have his powers under control and behaves with a real mischievous streak.
But I also indicated that there are scholars who call that understanding of the text into question. I’m not sure that includes the majority of scholars, but I do (personally) think it includes the most thoughtful ones. I myself used to think that this was the Gospel of Jesus the Superbrat; but now I don’t think so. Frankly, even though the stories seem very amusing and entertaining to us, I now don’t think ancient Christian readers (most of whom were not known for their sense of humor) would have seen them in this way. My bet now is that the earliest readers of these accounts took them very seriously. And what they saw was that they bespoke important things about Jesus.
A bit of background. The genre “biography” was alive and well in Greek and Roman antiquity (biographies were called “bioi,” literally meaning “Lives”). We have a bunch from Plutarch, for example, and Suetonius and … others. They are instructive reading. I should stress as strongly as I can – emphatically (just to be redundant) – that ancient biographies were NOT like modern ones in numerous ways, and for lots of reasons. One of the most obvious is that ancient biographers simply didn’t have access to the sorts of resources and data on their subjects that modern writers do, and so simply could not provide the kinds of in-depth and reliable analysis that is possible today.
One less obvious reason is that ancient biographers didn’t have the psychological insights that modern authors do, especially in our post-Freudian age. Ancient people understood the human character differently from us, and among other things they did not believe in such things as character development in quite the same way as we do. Ancient biographers were not much interested in “formative influences” on a person’s character. Instead, they tended to think that a person’s character was given at birth, and the events that happened early in a person’s life, rather than being challenges and experiences and influences that could shape their personalities were *instead* opportunities for a person to “manifest” his/her personality. And so when ancient biographers told stories about a person’s youth, it was normally in order to show the person’s character already at this early point in his/her life.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH IT!!!
DR Ehrman:
I think Jesus will return from heaven not to kill those who oppose him but to destroy the wicked! The wicked are those who take pleasure in doing evil. They are the ones responsible for the lust and corruption in this world. The standard has been established by God. The standard is the Ten Commandments. Righteousness is the measuring line. Love is the fulfillment of the Law. Love does no wrong to a neighbor.
~Cheito
“The standard is the Ten Commandments”
– Which version? The Exodus 20 version? Or the Exodus 34 version? I presume you’ve read the old testament and know that the only group of Ten Commandments explicitly stated as being the Ten Commandments reside in Exodus 34, right?
Your point is acknowledged. The Moral Law of God is the standard! Love is the fulfillment of the law.
I mean the moral Law. Paul the apostle does not say there are only Ten commandments. He mentions four which are found in Exodus 20: And he stated that if there is any other ‘commandment’ it is summed up in the following saying, “You’ll shall love your neighbor as yourself…Read it below.
Paul the Apostle of Jesus the Christ stated in Romans 13: 8-Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9-For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 10-Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Hi Bart, do you think that the earliest readers of these types of gospel would have taken them as literally true?
Thanks,
Jon
Yes, I think probably so.
Hi Bart,
I have a half-baked idea for you (Apologies for wasting your time in advance – it’s been a gin, pizza, and bible blog night over here). Elsewhere you have written that the story in John of Jesus writing in the dirt was interpolated – perhaps by a scribe that wanted to show that Jesus could indeed write. Was Jesus’s inability to write used against later Christians by their detractors? If yes, could the story of Jesus killing his grammar teacher possibly be a response to elite pagan mockers of Christ?
Interesting idea. But let me strongly suggest that you not mix gin and pizza. I’m a firm believer in both, but, well, not together! Granted, it’s a matter of taste….
I know this is nearly four years after the fact, but after reading your answer here, it struck me as an interesting example of textual criticism vs. historical criticism (a difference you’ve taught me to be very sensitive to—many thanks!) Here’s my observation: Aleph82 definitely wrote about combining gin and pizza, but I’d guess he was referring to the card game Gin rummy (not the alcoholic drink, which seems to be how you understood him). Quite a different mental image depending on what he meant! I wonder if he’s still around to clarify out of pure curiousity.
No question yet, so I’ll ask the three I was looking for the answer to that led me to this old post.
1. Do you think Kings Saul, David and Solomon were actual people?
2. Do you think there was a real First Temple that was destroyed by the Babylonians?
3. Do you think there were real prophets who later warned Israel about Assyria, and Judah about Babylonia?
Ah, change that. Eight quesitons today!! 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. Yes.
Sorry… I’ll scale back… I didn’t realize all of those questions were on the same day…
Unfortunately, the historical King David is not the biblical King David. Historical investigation points to two finds. First we find mention of David in the 18th Dynasty, indicative that chronologies are off. Second, we find a significant borrowing from the city of Tanis and the royals there. I go into this briefly in my book, The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy by Steefen. Although I’m working on the second edition, I am not updating the material on King David. That will happen in the third edition. Look at the King David story in terms of foreign affairs and the role of Egypt over the area to understand the United Kingdom of Judea and Israel was not an independent state, not the richest kingdom under a Hebrew Solomon, and the 23rd Psalm is amduat language (my paradigm shift happened at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Egyptian Wing, New York City and it is depicted in my theatrical play/dialogue: Water Bearing Fish, Part I). Also see the National Gallery of Art: http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/2002/egypt/index.htm
Your last explanation seems the most likely. My understanding is that the theology of hell wasn’t really well formed yet, so they needed a stick to go with the carrots. It would make sense, since most other Gods at the time could punish as well as reward. They also hadn’t developed anything like the theology of the trinity yet, so the idea that Jesus was perfect may have not got as ramped up yet.
Bart Ehrman:
The stories of Jesus in the Infancy Gospel are foreshadowings of what will take place later in his life without cursing anyone, harming anyone, or killing anyone.
Steefen:
This shows that the canonical gospels are without a doubt censored by post Failed Revolt cultural pressure. After Moses’ fight with the Egyptians, after the Hebrews slaughter of a number of peoples to take the Promise Land, after David fought Goliath, after David fought his own Son, after the Maccabean wars, after the Galilean revolts of 4(?) C.E., there is NO WAY the Son of Man could have taken Rome out to put the Kingdom of God in without harming anyone.
What we see in Luke, I think, is the statement: bring those here who didn’t want me king and slay them.
Second, when Jesus goes to Nazareth, the people do not remember him as a child with these miracles.
Bart Ehrman:
On the other hand, most early Christians believed very much that Jesus was going to curse/harm/kill people. In fact, that was one of the most pronounced understandings of Jesus. He was coming back from heaven, this time very angry indeed, and in his wrath he would destroy all who were opposed to him.
Steefen:
I find that hard to believe. Luke opens Acts asking people, “For what are you lookinging in the sky?” Jesus is gone.
Besides, if he did not come back to push the outcome of the Jewish Revolt and his Father Temple, then it’s over: end of story.
You must be talking about early Christians before 70 AD. If destroying the Temple and running the Jews out of Jerusalem didn’t make him angry, let alone his own crucifixion, when was he going to get angry with Rome? He got more angry with the Temple establishment then he did with Rome.
Jesus didn’t have one angry word to say against Rome? Zero chance of that: 100% chance that post Failed Revolt cultural pressure on the gospels was at work; and, *Flavian* Josephus, friend of Vespasian and Titus contributed to that Roman cultural pressure.
Bart Ehrman:
I think the Infancy Gospel is showing this side of his character already in his youth. Anyone who opposes Jesus or does not respect his person or his character will be subject to his wrath – just as seen in these stories about him as a child.
Steefen:
Notice, this child doesn’t get angry at a Roman and kill a Roman child. Apparently, Jesus was well aware of the Judas revolt after Herod the Great’s death. Dr. Ehrman, why wouldn’t Joseph, Mary, and Jesus not leave Nazareth if Rome was burning down Galilee? To where did people flee?
Bart Ehrman:
The stories of Jesus in the Infancy Gospel are foreshadowings of what will take place later in his life without cursing anyone, harming anyone, or killing anyone.
Steefen:
What we see in Luke, I think, is the statement: bring those here who didn’t want me king and slay them. This is one of Jesus sayings within a parable. We must ask, who wouldn’t want Jesus to be King Jesus? Who would be brought before Jesus to be slain before him? The answer would be some of the members of the Temple establishment, but also the Romans.
I haven’t heard this put quite this way before, but here it is: that parable is the “sedition parable.”
We cannot get around Jesus’ direct confrontation with Rome. We could say as a child he knew of Rome’s burning of rebel villages. Jesus must have projected his confrontation from Rome to Jewish opponents only, the Jewish Temple establishment. However, he had to know how much Roman power was behind them. Jesus could not have brought the Son of Man content into his ministry without knowing that was “bandit” talk. Even if there were windows of opportunity for him to succeed with his Kingdom of God, his kingdom would still need to conduct foreign affairs–with Rome.
Bart, this is very disturbing to me:
1) For years churches tell us King Herod didn’t want the baby Jesus to be king, so he killed all the children.
One of my replies to that is that Herod the Great had other succession issues, his own son impatient for the throne and plotting patricide. Jesus’ birth was a side bar; and, as it turns out, Jesus took Herod the Great’s title of King of the Jews for two days: Passover and the day of his crucifixion where King of the Jews was written over his head on the cross.
I’ll like to identify another sidebar: the birth of Prince Izates, “the only begotten son” of King Mono-bazus and Queen Helena. “The only begotten son” references Jesus, obviously. Later in the life of King Izates, he feeds 5,000 and more. Third, the royal family tree of King Izates are the Manu kings. Em-Manu-El references Jesus as well. Fourth, for some reason Prof. Eisenman believes the church of Antioch could also refer to a third Antioch: Edessa. Edessa was so important to Christianity that Eusebius forces attention on this Christian Kingdom by starting the legend of Jesus exchanging correspondence with King Agbar. (All I need is good reason to think Queen Helena and King Izates, Mary and Jesus, Mother and Child, as holy converts, explored exoricism and healing in addition to being saviors during time of famine.)
2) New Testament Scholars would lead readers to believe the killing of the Innocents by Herod was not a historical event.
My response to that: Judah the Galilean starts a riot upon Herod the Great’s death and upon Herod the Great’s death, Herod Antipas becomes tetrarch over Galilee.
DRUM ROLL:
Is Herod Antipas implicated in the crack down by Rome?
I think he is.
The children who were killed in the backlash against the post Herod the Great death riots would be the innocent children killed during Jesus’ infancy and Izates’ infancy.
The Bible fictionalizes this event by tying it to a suspicious Herod killing people because of the Star Prophecy.
(Reza Aslan tells us how fictionalized the Dance of the Seven Veils and the beheading of John the Baptist was. He also tells us that the Bible has a problem identifying the place where John the Baptist was killed.)
The killing of the innocents (Judah the Galilean uprising crackdown) put blood on the hands of the Romans more than on Herod Antipas, BUT, post Failed Revolt cultural pressure would not dare have the gospels claim Rome had anything to do with this: it was Herod acting alone. In reality, it was Rome acting, police action, to help Herod Antipas reign in peace, “Pax Romana.”
There wasn’t the biblical killing of the children by Herod’s command AND the Roman backlash against the Judah of Galilean rebels but the innocent who were killed during the latter. Did Herod Antipas have to order the crackdown which included the killing of inncoents when villages were burned down, as dictated by Rome as first order of business? Probably so until you, a colleague, or writers and scholars unknown, bring a better magnifying glass to this situation and explain otherwise.
Did the first hearers and readers of these stories believe they were true?
Depends on what amount of originality one attributes to the authors of the gospels, both canonical and otherwise. Some stories were made up and handed down over decades of tradition, which were written down more or less in tact by writers who were not true authors, but perhaps redactors, ie, compilers and editors. Or so the story goes. But if at least some of these authors were indeed real authors, and I believe they were, both canonical and otherwise, such an author obviously knew that his creation was in fact his (or her) own creation and not ‘historically true’. They were creative story tellers. They saw themselves as free to do so because that was already a very common way of interpreting ancient texts and traditions, both canonical and otherwise, among Jews and Gentiles both. Some authors were better at their craft than others. Obviously, some members of the contemporary and later audiences were more gullible than others and maybe some authors took advantage of their audience, cf Lucian’s account of Peregrinus. But some of these ancient authors, both canonical and otherwise, and some in their audience, would have certainly known they were purposefully taking creative liberties. I compare ‘Mark’ as a story teller to Oliver Stone, while Luke is more like Stephen Spielberg. There’s a lot of Hollywood in the gospels, but not everyone in the audience will accept elaborate conspiracy theories like those of Oliver Stone. When you’ve got a good story, it’s always tempting to improve upon it, make it a little more dramatic or ironic, or outlandish.
This reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw on a truck c. 1975, when I was 10 years old and reguarly attneding a baptist church (although this bumper sticker was not on a truck in the baptit church’s parking lot, for sure!)
“JESUS IS COMING….AND BOY IS HE PISSED!”
Well, with regard to the violence question, Jesus is quoted as saying that He comes not to bring peace, but a sword and to turn son against father and daughter against mother. Jesus also seems to suggest that there is some merit in castration, plucking out an eye, and cutting off a hand. There is also the clearing of the temple incident and a lot of HIs talk about Hell. So, I don’t know about how violent He was. Again, people tend to make Jesus in their own image.