Loading...As I indicated in my previous two posts on the Martyrdom of Perpetua, I’m interested in the question of where the idea of purgatory came from. Ths idea of purgatory is *widely* misunderstood today; in fact, just about everyone who mentions it to me (including two days ago), doesn’t know what it actually is — including friends who have been Catholic for the entire 70 years of their lives! (Not to mention the Protestants…)
This is how I discussed the issue some years ago when I was working on my book Heaven and Hell:
******************************
Roughly speaking purgatory is a kind of third place, between heaven and hell. The abject sinners (or those who reject Christ, or whoever you think is destined for punishment) go to hell; the righteous saints go to heaven. But what about those who will ultimately be saved but who have not lived a good (enough) life? They go to purgatory. This has been the standard teaching of the Catholic church since the 12th or 13th century.
The classic study of the phenomenon is Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory (1984; an English translation of the 1981 French original). Le Goff was a medieval historian who was interested in the question from a purely historical, rather than theological, perspective (he was not a believer himself). He shows that the term purgatorium was minted only in the 12th century. It referred not to a state of being in the afterlife but to an actual place that people went – most people – in order to be “purged” of their sins before being allowed into paradise.
This doctrine came to be
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!
You say on one of your YouTube episodes that the Doctrine of Atonement is full of problems.
Could you do a series on Atonement and what these problems are?
Interesting idea!
Hi Bart. I’m reading your “How Jesus Became God” and in p. 224, discussing Romans 1:3-4 you say: “For [the creator of the creed], Jesus was the messiah from the house of David during his early life, but at the resurrection be was made something much more than that. The resurrection was Jesus’ exaltation into divinity.”
Wouldn’t he already be divine during his life (in fact the Son of God) by virtue of being the messiah?
If so, maybe “in power” was part of the original creed and not added by Paul, and it was intended to indicate that he was now in power, in contrast with his earthly existence?
Ah, good question. No, most Jews (prior to Christianity) did not think the messiah was a divine figure but purely human. And yes, “in power” is probably a Pauline addition since he thought Jesus already was the Son of God (in differentiation from the creed itself)
Thanks for the reply! I’m confused then. My take from the previous chapter about humans who were considered divine in the Jewish tradition was that the King of Israel was considered divine (not God almighty, sure, but somewhere in the divine spectrum), and also called the Son of God.
Am I wrong to reach that conclusion? If it is correct, how could the Messiah (the future king of Israel) not be considered the Son of God? Would the “adoption” happen at the anointment and not before?
He was indeed called the Son of God, but he was not understood to be divine in the metaphysical sense. That is, he wasn’t something *other* than human. He was the son of God because he was in a specially and particularly close relationship with God, as the one God had chosen to mediate his well here on earth. (Israel is also called the son of God Hos. 11:1, but it was comprised of humans)
There are those of us who as undergrads would never have taken a course on a pass-fail basis. Furthermore, some of us (myself included) really resented anyone who could squeak by with no more assessment than “you did/didn’t make it.” I suspect the notion of purgatory was created by people like me; I can’t claim to be proud of it. Human justice demands that a saint get a better reward than a basically good guy who runs stops signs when no one is looking. According to Scripture, Christ said there are many mansions in heaven, so maybe the martyrs get ocean-front lots and jacuzzi tubs. Or maybe their clouds are fluffier. But all that is a little to vague for me, since I prefer my mattresses firm while jacuzzis make me feel like underwear in the wash cycle. Even the “deferred presence of God” threat is a bit weak when you’re used to waiting for your IRS refund. But tell me I’ll be sitting in a campfire for a duration that gets extended every time I laugh at Howard Stern, and I might pay attention. Where’s my indulgence spreadsheet….
Hello Bart. Just signed up for the Blog and thanks for all your work. I have two questions if you don’t mind. If you can’t answer both I hope you can at least point me to a source where you address these questions. I’m still new to your work.
What do you think about the possibility of John being a much earlier gospel? I think it may even be before the roman-Jewish war because of how it speaks about the sheep gate, temple, pools, and other things as if these structures are still around and addresses issues like the growing movement around John the Baptist movement which wouldn’t have been an issue for later Christians. It may also explain why it’s so independent of the synoptics as it doesn’t mention the virgin birth despite having a very high Christology.
Secondly, Do you think Luke might be a much later Gospel like 140s ad or so. I think the book of Luke-Acts used Josephus as a source and was possibly addressed to Theophilus of Antioch. Wondering your thoughts.
1. I still think it has to be the last of the Gospels; the fact it mentions earlier events/structures/etc. is very interesting, as you point out, but I don’t think these things show an earlier date. The Talmud, written centuries later, does the same thing.
2. I don’t think so. Writers around 100-120 seem to know it (the Didache, Polycarp, etc.)
Bart, why do you think the Didache knew about Luke, instead of Luke knowing about the Didache? or, whatever they knew, was known before them?
Good question. It’s possible, but the only previous sources Luke mentions having heard/known about are prevoius accounts of the life of Jesus (not tractates on church organiziation etc.), whereas the Didache appears to be quoting texts about Jesus’ teachings. The only ones we know about, at least, are Gospels.
As you might imagine there is a lot of scholarship on what hte Apostolic Fathers were quoting and when they date relative to the other early Christain writings. I can’t recall ever reading someone make a case that Luke used the Didache, but I suppose it’s possible. A case would have to be made, of course.
According to the late George Carlin purgatory was a temporary hell, but you knew you were going home.
We so miss him.
I did find your article question interesting. As a matter of fact, I found Purgatory was an add-on supposition to their earlier designation of their term called Limbo. I believe this was brought up during the Middle ages. There was a twofold reason for generation this new after life location. The first, was to give hope to the infants that may have passed on, (such as crib death), before having been Baptized. But the deal was, the infant’s soul will remain there till the Resurrection. This was meant to encourage folks to have their newborns Baptized as soon as possible. This did two things, save your baby from Original Sin before the unfortunate happens, and make sure as many newborns get Baptized into the Catholic church as possible. Very ingenious ploy if you ask me.
However, as you noted in the article, there were questions about those that may not have been absolute do-gooders and it is my understanding, that Purgatory came up, to stand on a similar platform as Limbo, but for the sake of adults, somewhere around the 12th century. Later they generally became noted for the same reason. Pope Benedict had Limbo dropped around 2004.
Why did Pope Benedict reject the limbo doctrine?
I find Jacques Le Goff’s idea that purgatory arose out of a simple analogy from an emerging middle class counterintuitive. That class would have to be widespread and a much discussed topic to gain the analogous force to appeal to people. My hunch is that purgatory is a kind of compromise between the need to include more of the masses in the Christian tradition and to give them reason for hope for an eventual good afterlife and the need to assuage the devout and “good” Christians the satisfaction that their lifestyle would have them avoid any suffering in the afterlife like the more sinful. The church grows and the faithful are assuaged.
OK, thanks. Have you read his analysis? It’s pretty convincing, in my view.