I AM NOW REVISING THE NEW TESTAMENT PORTION OF MY BIBLE INTRODUCTION, AND THOUGHT THAT SOME OF THE SECTIONS IN IT MAY BE OF BROADER INTEREST. AND SO I WILL POST A FEW OF (WHAT STRIKE ME AS) THE MORE INTERESTING PARTS HERE ON THE BLOG OVER THE NEXT WEEK OR SO.
THE FOLLOWING IS HOW I BEGIN THIS SECOND SECTION. BEFORE THIS PORTION ARE AN OPENING EIGHT CHAPTERS DEVOTED TO THE HEBREW BIBLE. THEN THERE IS THIS TRANSITIONAL CHAPTER, FOLLOWED BY FIVE ON THE NT. TO GET GEARED UP FOR THE NT, I START AS FOLLOWS. THIS WILL SOUND FAMILIAR TO YOU IF YOU’VE READ SOME OF MY OTHER BOOKS
**********************************************************************************************************************
Throughout our study so far we have seen why it is important to know the context of a biblical writing if we want to interpret it correctly. You cannot understand what Isaiah meant when he said that “a young woman has conceived and will bear a son, and you will call him Immanuel,” without knowing that he spoke these words in the context of the Syro-Ephraimite war against Judah; you can’t understand the bizarre visions of the book of Daniel – e.g., the fourth, terrible, beast with a little horn with human eyes and a mouth that speaks arrogantly – without realizing that he was writing in a time of severe persecution and suffering during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes of Syria. The same is true of all the prophets and historical books. Knowing the context of a writing is fundamental for understanding what an author meant.
This is no less true for the New Testament than for the Tanakh. Here too we have to place the writings of the biblical authors in their appropriate context if we want to make sense of what they mean. Probably most readers of the Bible do not realize this. That would be one reason there are so many different interpretations of the Bible by people who consider themselves “experts” (just turn on the TV any Sunday morning and you’ll see what I mean!). Readers of the Bible who are not trained in history tend not to think in terms of historical context, and so simply read the words of these ancient authors as if they were writing in twenty-first century America. But these authors were not American, and they were not writing in modern times. They lived in a different part of the world, in a different culture, with different customs, and different assumptions about the world and life in it. If you pretend that they were writing in our own context, instead of theirs, you take their words out of context. And anytime you take a text out of context, you change its meaning.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR???
When will this be published? Thanks
Probably late summer, I hope!
I remember reading this bit about Apollonius in your New Testament textbook. It inspired me to purchase and read Philostratus’s “Life” (Chris Jones’ translation) and the 3rd book with Apollonius’s letters and the Eusebius’s quotes. It was a great read. Thank you.
The Apollonius of Tyana comparison is pretty close to (word for word?) what appears in your Oxford University Press “The New Testament” and I remember him mentioned one or two of the popular non-fiction books (Apocalyptic Prophet at least,) yes, but I don’t think I’ve previously seen the contextualization of the Daniel and Isaiah language-which are fascinating in and of themselves and will probably set me on several more hours of Wikipedia on the iPad tonight before bed (my Fiancé would like to have a word with you about that by the way…) Again, the blog membership is turning out to be the best investment (can we think of it as an investment when the money is going to charity?) of the year. Thank you once again.
Yes, these books are for two different audiences. And who would want either one to lose out on the fun?
After reading that, I really want to see an “Apollonius Of Tyana vs Jesus Of Nazareth” movie.
“THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE SON OF GOD!”
If not a facetious comment, why only “one”? And why not “daughters, too!?
I’m afraid you lost me. One what?
sounds like he was making a “Highlander” reference.
I think I recall reading a similar passage in your New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. That is still my favourite book of yours that is aimed at undergraduate studies. I eagerly await this new publication. Will it also be geared towards undergraduate and graduate level studies?
Yup, pretty much the same approach to Apollonius and Jesus. This book is really geared for the lower-level undergraduate — certainly not for grad students, nor a popular audience among adults.
When I preach at church, I try to always remind the congregation about the importance of context. I try to introduce the context into my sermon. I like reading your books and this blog because you have emphasized the importance of context to understanding the scriptures. Thank you so much for your comments.
Hi Dr. Ehrman, in your article you say,
“In fact, from the tantalizing but fragmentary records that have survived we know of numerous other persons also said to have performed miracles, to have calmed the storm and multiplied loaves, to have told the future and healed the sick, to have cast out demons and raised the dead, to have been supernaturally born and taken up into heaven at the end of their life.”
Could you reference some of these records or point me to where I could find some?
Thanks!
One convenient place to turn is the opening sectin of Cartlidge and Dungan, Documents for the Study of the Gospels.
Dr Ehrman,
even if the point of your brilliant post is to emphasize the context favorable of certain belief, I think it is possible to maintain that the similarities between Jesus and Apollonius derive from the fact that Philostratus, writing a century after the Gospels, precisely because of the rivalry between followers of the two historical figures, took many features of Jesus attributing them to Apollonius. What do you think about?
Thank you!!
Yup, it’s possible!
Dr Ehrman,
“At a later time, Jesus’ followers argued that Jesus was the miracle-working Son of God, and that Apollonius was an impostor, a magician, and a fraud. Perhaps not surprisingly, Apollonius’s followers made just the opposite claim”. When this began? In the second century (or in the third), or even before, in the first?
Thank you so much!!
Probably in the second. He died near the end of the first century, so there was not much back and forth then.
Dr Ehrman,
since the rivalry between the followers of Jesus and Apollonius began in the second century, is it correct to say that the authors of the gospels as well as Paul did not know the figure of Apollonius?
Thanks
THat’s right — he was living at the end of the first century, a couple of decades, e.g., after Paul had died.
Dr Ehrman,
presumably when Apollonius was born and died?
Thank you
Are you asking when he was born and when he died? He was actually around I guess during Paul’s ministry, but I’m not sure that he was active at that point. He was reputedly executed around 95-100; Paul wold have died around 64.
I ask because from what I understand Philostratus says that he was tried by Tigellino in the 60s (John E Welch p. 356 in “Jesus and Archaeology” by Charlesworth) and several sources say that Philostratus places him circa 3 BC – c. 97 AD. (Dzielska, M 1986, “On the memoirs of Damis”. Apollonius of Tyana in legend and history” pp. 19–50)
Does Philostratus say that? I thought he put it under Domitian, but maybe I’m wrong.
“Does Philostratus say that? [Apollonius, circa 3 BC – c. 97 AD] I thought he put it under Domitian, but maybe I’m wrong.”
In any case, even if it were, you still remain of the idea that who wrote the Gospels was not aware of the figure of Apollonius, right?