Loading...Did Jesus’ followers actually follow his teachings? In my previous post I pointed out that Jesus had a radical ethic, a view based on the teachings of Hebrew Scripture but radicalized because of his understanding of the apocalyptic event very soon to occur with the end of history as he knew it. As we know from history, those who expect the End soon can behave in extreme ways (sell the farm!). Jesus’ teachings, as I indicated, are, in shorthand, “prophetic ethics on apocalyptic steroids.”
How did his followers carry on his teachings? That’s what I deal with here, as I continue to excerpt a sketch of my book that I myself wrote for me myself (I won’t start writing the book itself for some months probably. Still have work to do). Here I explain the book’s basic plotline, theses, and organization.
******************************
The ultimate argument of my book is that after Jesus’ death,
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!
Off Topic: Is the doctrine of original sin in the Hebrew Bible?
No, not as it came to be formulated within the Catholic tradition (or alternatively in the way Protestants mean it either)
This sounds like a it will be a wonderful book!
The early influences from people, places and things outside of the original Apostles core teachings did make Christianity significantly different (and much more theologically bloated) from what we read about Jesus’ teachings. It seems that we went from a ‘less is more’ type of understanding to a ‘more is necessary’ type of understanding of faith in God. The void from the ‘missing disciples’ (those other than Peter, Paul and James) was filled somehow – although it seems that somehow the missing disciples were given credit through the naming of churches and various regionally sponsored hagiographic stories.
Outside of the 4th century and later stories, do we have any useful evidence of the missing disciples post-resurrection teachings, travels or activities?
Was Clement of Alexandria considered the first historically significant non-Apostolic influencer of Christian teachings?
We have legends that are in third century apocryphal accounts of a few of the apostles. And no, there were many writers before Clement of Alexandria who were important: all the apostolic fathers (Ignatius, Clement, etc.), apologists (Justin Martyr, Athenagoras) and so on.
Looking forward to this book–your books are a tonic for this old agnostic. You probably mentioned it but is this forthcoming book targeted for the general reader or is it more of an academic work?
General reader, not academic nerds!
Assuming that physical/bodily resurrection is literally impossible, what led Jesus’s first followers to “imagine” that he had been raised rather than simply was dead? What emotions/desires/needs/experiences/current ideas, etc “created” their experience of Jesus being alive again? Why was that the possibility that won out in their minds rather than some other possibility? Is there anything in the NT that suggests to scholars how they reached that conclusion?
I suppose resurrection linked up in their minds with their hopes for the arrival of God’s kingdom that Jesus had inspired. Rather than concluding that Jesus had simply been mistaken, they “doubled down” and reinterpreted what had happened. This led to a scripture search to find prophecies that predicted a suffering messiah and explained why it was necessary. Also, resurrection of the dead was an integral part of the apocalyptic scenario, especially for Paul.
And there is a modern social scientific understanding that reinterpretation is a common human reaction to “When Prophecy Fails” — if I’m remembering the title of a book on that subject correctly.
There’s no way to know what psychological factors would/could have been involved, but it’s pretty clear that some of them thought they saw Jesus alive afterward. I talk about that and the phenomenon of “visions” as studied by modern psychology in my book How jesus Became God. And yes, Festinger, When Prophecy Fails — intriguing book!
I find it hard to believe that early Christians concluded that Jesus was God (which ultimately led to the Trinity) simply/mainly because such a statement was attributed to Jesus. There must have been experiences of Jesus – probably interpreted through their broader religious beliefs and overall worldview – that ultimately led to that belief.
Somewhere in my reading I came across the idea that Christians somehow experienced salvation through Jesus – even before they explicitly believed he was God. Did that (among other things) eventually (and, in a way, logically) lead to the belief that Jesus was God — because it was impossible for salvation to come from anyone but God?
I vaguely recall there being a church father who argued for Jesus’s divinity being equal to the Father’s based on something in the OT about God being the (only) one to save his people.
In retrospect it seems almost inevitable that Christians would eventually conclude that Jesus was God and equal in divinity to the Father. But why then was patripassianism eventually deemed heretical? It would have precluded all the complications of the Trinity. Did it call into question God’s changeless perfection?
I agree; there’s no way that Jesus’ followers thought he was God because he said so. for one thing, he almost certainly didn’t say so.
A very interesting article, thank you very much. What I woud like to know instead is, what do we know today about the moral life of Jesus followers and his apostles, shortly after jesus death and during the first century? Do we know anything about if they really tried to live a moral life like it was intended by Jesus radicalized ethics?
With Regards
Luke
I”m afraid our only sources of informatoin are the letters of Paul and the book of Acgs. Both of them, of course, portray the apostles as highly moral. But by the time of Paul’s churches, there are certainly rich folk around and in the communities.
Thanks for update Bart. Philanthropy played a central role in my career first as a United Methodist minister (M.Div., Duke, ’84) and then as the ED of hospital foundation. Looking forward to reading your research and analysis regarding altruism in western world and its influenced and/or origins in Xian ideas.
Professor Ehrman , in Matthew 27:62-66 the author depicts the Sadducees and Pharisees meeting with Pilate and doing work on the Sabbath in plain view of anyone walking by. If the author was a Jew, wouldn’t he know this would be unlikely? Also in verse 65, Pilate tells the chief priests to use the Temple guards to watch over the tomb but in verse 28:14 the author makes it sound like to me, that the guards were Roman. Why else would the guards get in trouble with Pilate if they were Temple guards?
27:62 indicates it was on a Friday (the Day of Preparation); so apparently Matthew is imagining that they were doing this before the sun set, possibly while Joseph was finishing up putting him in the grave.
I am confused Professor, Matthew 27:62 reads, “The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate”. Would that not be the sabbath?
Ouch. I think I posted the wrong response (I wrote two). Yes, you’re right it almost certainly does mean the Sabbath day. The top commentary on Matthew (by Davies and Allison) concedes that Matthew must mean the Sabbath, but this way of speaking about the Sabbath is highly unusual. It’s almost always (or always?) just called Sabbath. They suggest that the fact Matthew doesn’t call it that suggests he doesn’t want to call attention to the fact — which is odd since he almost always wants to attack the “hypocrites” — and they suggest that Matthew doesn’t completely buy himself what he’s saying, that they did all this on the Sabbath, since it literally wouldn’t make sense. I’m not sure what to make of it. Maybe it is a subtle dig at the leaders….
To what extent do you think the historical Jesus cared about gentiles? I view the story of the SyroPhoenician woman as an illustration of Jesus showing contempt for gentiles- he calls her a dog barely worthy of scraps from his table. The feel-good story of the good Samaritan is only in the book of Luke, so makes sense as Pauline propaganda instead of being a historical quotation.
Jesus also said that people would come from east and west, but that could easily refer to Jews living outside the region.
Why would the historical Jesus care about gentiles?
I think he considered the commandment of love to exceed the bounds of ethnicity and nationality — hence, for example, the Good Samaritan and the Sheep and the Goats, two key passages for understanding his views, I think.
Sorry this is off topic. I recently ran across an article in the Smithsonian about the discovery in 2017 of a skeleton of a crucified man in the UK. Interestingly, this man, who was found with a nail through his heel similar to the other discovery in the middle east, was given a decent (well, at least normal) burial. I looked for some of your earlier posts regarding your belief that victims of crucifixion were not given such burials, but didn’t find anything later than about 2014, although I’m sure there were some recent ones. I am interested in whether or not this changes your views at all. I know only 2 out of probably hundreds of thousands of crucified people is a small sample, but really we don’t have any data on victims of crucifixion that we haven’t found, so perhaps allowing normal burials for victims may not have been as rare as we thought? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/see-the-face-of-roman-britains-only-known-crucifixion-victim-180983596/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_term=1172024&utm_content=new&fbclid=IwAR374LJuVEtOoaB2I-JvZAi06WvCMKbCZVsGOCVCFI320_vUcoh7k8oZQ-0
The issue is not whether a crucified person eventually had his remains disposed of (that obviously always happened in some way). The question is when that happened — on the day of his death or days/weeks later after the body (not the skeleton!) had decomposed a bit or a lot. These findings don’t help us with the answer.
I really appreciate this blog. Thank you!
This is my first post. I have been quite intrigued by your planned new book on radical altruism as something truly unique in Christianity, which has now almost become part of our DNA.
I was thinking about, and curious about your take on, the stories in the gospels about the woman pouring expensive perfume or ointment on Jesus, and the protests – by either disciples, bystanders, or Judas specifically – that this could have been sold and given to the poor. Was that due to Jesus’ teachings, or an existing ethic in Jewish culture, or just a guise for getting hands on the money (as John accuses Judas)?
Jesus’ views of helping the poor are deeply rooted in Jewish tradition. It’s a strange story since in this case he doesn’t mind the extravagance! I don’t think it’s probably an authentic account of something that actualyl happened.
I wonder if the author of Luke’s Gospel thought the same way! In Luke 7:36-50, the anointing story has been moved to Galilee and earlier in Jesus’ ministry. No mention of how expensive the ointment is and here the focus is no longer on Jesus’ burial, but instead on the forgiveness of sins.
Going to be hard waiting a year for this to come out! One question: where did Christian asceticism come from? I know Jesus was celibate, but I also recall his followers being “drunkenly” at times.
Yeah, some of my friends mentioned that about me in high school…. But yes, there were ascetic strands to Xty early on, and Jesus himself appears to have been single and celibate and intentionally poor. ON the other hnad, he did also appear to have a reputation for eating and drinking, so it’s a bit hard to pin him down in that respect.
I think that is a noble goal! Most people haven’t been exposed to ethical ideas of the philosophers, so their only ethical framework is from the Bible. Showing how (and why) those ethics evolved over time would help is understand western ethics today
Re: Culmination. Not sure if it fits the theme or scope of the book, but I’ve been pondering the increasing emphasis on sexuality in modern Christian ethics. The NT doesn’t spend much time on that
The other thing I’ve been thinking about is the Fundamentalist hatred of the “other”. Liberals, immigrants, diversity, and “the gays” for instance. How did that ethic develop from Christianity which seems to teach the opposite?
yeah, it’s a key question. Sonme evangelical pastors are now saying that Jesus was too “soft” in the Sermon on the Mount. It’s amazing ho wmuch hatred gets spun out of teachings of love of other.
I have recently left the faith after 50 years as a person who faithfully read apologetics from a variety of seemingly rational authors, in large part due to the Evangelical embrace of Trump along with the selfishness of Libertarians and the xenophobia that appears to embody the Republican MAGA faithful. They motivated me to read a whole host of authors such as yourself (5 books), Dan Barker, Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, Christopher Hitchens, Neil Silberman, Israel Finkelstein, Jonathan Haidt, Michael Shermer, Daniel Dennet, Jerry Coyne, Peter Enns, and many more. I was afraid to read the critics because as a believer in rationality I was afraid they would weaken my shaky faith. Now I genuinely fear the Evangelical view of the faith has made it a force for stupidity, hate and potential violence. I am really angry with myself for being so wrong for so long. Thank you for helping me to see the world with a much greater degree of rationality.
Similar to my path as well, although Jerry Coyne and Bart are the only authors we have in common. And I’m still deeply involved in my (non-Evangelical) Church and have kept my non-theism mostly to myself. I also didn’t read atheist/agnostic critics of Christianity for pretty much your same reason. As I edged closer in that direction, Frank Schaeffer’s books finally helped me cross over. A few years later I was ready to read Bart. I share your fears about the direction of Evangelicals and try to ally with Progressive believing Christians without pushing them to go my direction. Faith is really hard to shake when it’s so core to your identity.
Do you think Christianity at that time was anti-consumerism/capitalism?
The major problem is that there wasn’t such a thing as capitalism, and anything like consumerism would have been restricted only to the upper elite, since most of the population of the empire was struggling just to survive. But Christians did insist on using money to help others rather than on oneself, if there was a surplus.
I know the NRSV is your preferred translation of the Bible. Are there any “colloquial” translations of the gospels that you are able to recommend? Some that I’m aware of are: Good News for Modern Man, the Scholar’s Version by the Jesus Seminar, the Gospels by Sara Ruden, and The Message by Peterson.
By colloquial I mean a translation in ordinary, everyday, colorful, contemporary (American) English, including contemporary slang and figures of speech, so that the language has an emotional impact on contemporary readers that is somewhat equivalent to what the first readers and hearers of the gospels would have felt.
I need a good example of what I mean. Maybe “heaven on earth” or “an ideal/perfect world” or just “world peace and the end of poverty” for “kingdom of God/Heaven”? Or “bitch” for “dog” when Jesus initially rejects the Syro-Phoenician woman’s request for help for her daughter? Or maybe change Jesus’s name to Joshua since the former is so rare in our society and has become so “precious” due to an excess of piety? Or make Jesus’s healings more about mental health? Or change the parables to have more contemporary characters and theme?
The problem is that one person’s sense of the “same emotional impact” is not the same as another’s and taking liberties with what an author said in order to convey an impact maybe be interesting, but it’s of less use in trying to figure out what a text means. So, well, nothing comes to mind. If you want something that reads well, and it doesn’t matter if it’s a faithful representation of the original language, then I guess the best thing to do would be to look at some examples of paraphrases on line and pick one that suits your fancy.
Starting to make me think I should be a Jesus follower after all…
A quote from a Catholic writer that I am fond of, and wish that everyone who calls themselves christian would take to heart:
“It belongs to the essence of a Christian spirituality to receive our fellow human beings into our world without imposing our religious viewpoint, ideology or way of doing things on them as a condition for love, friendship and care.” — H. M. Nouwen
He was a great man. Commencement speaker when I graduated from princeton seminary.
Attribution in previous comment should be Henri J. M. Nouwen. I was simply being hasty.
Sounds like an intriguing book. Looking forward to reading it.
Did you know that there is research on altruism in animals? This video about a humpback whale is intriguing. Maybe DNA does have something to do with it. https://a-z-animals.com/blog/watch-humpback-whale-saves-diver-from-massive-tiger-shark/
Oh yes. All the way down to viruses! Very intersting stuff.
I am curious if you intend to place this in the context of other work written on the subject of political theology or will it be more of a stand alone investigation? Tom Holland‘s Dominion is quite central to discussions as of late and there are many other classics such as Nietzsche and Schmidt, as well as more contemporary writers such as Marcello Pera, Jordan Peterson and Larry Siedentop who have made similar arguments. If you do intend to engage with the other literature on “political theology” I am curious to see how your insights will different from the others. Looking forward to reading it.
Well, I won’t be presenting it as a work of scholarship engaging with other thinkers. Holland’s book is the one most people mention to me, and it is indeed a fascinating work and we have a lot in common. But even tho our views are similar in some ways, my book will be nothing like his. Others are very much worth reading but again, they’re not at all what I’ll be doing.
I’m not Biblical scholar, but, as a layperson, I wonder if the general attitude toward morality in the Hebrew Scriptures is focused on the morality of the tribe. God’s judgment and blessing was exercised with regard to whole cities, or even the Jewish nation, with the Covenant regarded as being between God and His People. It seems to me that Jesus often changed to focus to individuals and their behavior, and Jesus stressed the individual’s role in keeping the commandments to love God and neighbor.
Yup, I think most of the “ethical” injunctions apply to how one behaves to fellow Israelites.