(15 votes, average: 4.33 out of 5)
Loading...In browsing through some old posts, I came across this one from five years ago, in which I deal with two questions I still today get asked about the “evidence” that Jesus did, or did not, exist. The post deals with pointed issues raised by my colleague in the field, Ben Witherington. The answers still seem germane to me today, as the question of Jesus’ existence has simply ratcheted up, all these years later.
Some of Ben Witherington’s most popular books are The Jesus Quest, and The Problem with Evangelical Theology, among others.
***********************************************************************************
Ben Witherington, a conservative evangelical Christian New Testament scholar, has asked me to respond to a number of questions about my book Did Jesus Exist, especially in light of criticism I have received for it (not, for the most part, from committed Christians!). His blog is widely read by conservative evangelicals, and he has agreed to post the questions and my answers without editing, to give his readers a sense of why I wrote the book, what I hoped to accomplish by it, and what I would like them to know about it. He has graciously agreed to allow me to post my responses here on my blog. The Q’s are obviously his, the A’s mine.
Q. Robert Price’s argument that the stories of Jesus are a giant midrash on OT stories about Moses and others, and so are completely fiction seems to ignore the fact that midrash is a hermeneutical technique used for contemporizing pre-existing stories. Talk briefly about the difference between how stories are shaped in the Gospels and whether they have any historical substance or core or not. (N.B. It appears that Crossan has recently made the same kind of category mistake arguing that since there are parables in the Gospels, that whole stories about Jesus may be parables, pure literary fictions).
A. In Did Jesus Exist? I try to make a major methodological point that there is a very big difference between saying that a story has been shaped in a certain (non-historical) way and saying that the story is completely non-historical. I make this point because authors like Robert Price have claimed that all the stories about Jesus in the Gospels are midrashes on stories found in the OT. By that he means, roughly, that the story of Jesus is shaped in such a way as to reflect a kind of retelling or exposition of stories about persons and events in the Old Testament. For example, the beginning of Matthew’s Gospel shapes the stories about Jesus to make Jesus appear to be a kind of “second Moses.” Like Moses, Jesus is supernaturally protected at his birth when the ruler (Pharaoh/Herod) seeks to destroy him; like Moses he goes down to Egypt as an infant; like Moses he comes up out of Egypt to the promised land; like Moses he passes through the waters (the parting of the Red Sea; the baptism); after which he spends time in the wilderness being “tested” (40 years; 40 days); after which he goes up on the mountain to receive/deliver the Law (Mount Sinai; Sermon on the Mount). The story of Jesus has evidently been “shaped” in light of the author’s knowledge of the story of Moses in order to say something: Jesus is the new Moses.
THE REST OF MY ANSWER can be read only by Members of the blog. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!
As difficult as it is to prove that an ancient person existed, it is virtually impossible to prove that an ancient person did NOT exist! For example, there could be evidence that the Iliad was not written by a single author, but that wouldn’t prove that a poet named Homer did not exist, who was eventually given credit for it. One reason I find it easy to believe in a factual Jesus is that “Messiahs” pop up at least once every generation; we see them today even (often with tragic results). So much easier for me to believe that there was a preacher named Jesus who later had stories expanded or invented about him than to believe the stories were made up and assigned to a mythical man named Jesus. Especially since his crucifixion was a problem for most Jews, and also Gentiles, as Paul himself pointed out (1 Cor. 1:23).
What distinguishes Jesus most from the Apollonius and many other Divine Men is that his primary attributes are not his purported ability to work miracles. I believe that most if not all of the miracles attributed to him in his lifetime were along the lines of faith-healing. And there’s no reason to think that through personal magnetism alone, he couldn’t have given genuine comfort to some people, perhaps even truly healed them (the mind-body connection–and he himself was known to say that the people he healed had really healed themselves, through believing).
After his crucifixion, he was said to have risen from the dead, but it’s debatable whether as told, this is a story about a miracle he performed personally, or a miracle of God associated with him (made even muddier by the fact that he always claimed that anyone could perform miracles if he or she believed deeply enough–it was always God performing the miracle through him). But Christians would of course say that his miracles were proof of his divine nature–and then would be confronted with the miracles performed by others, and this is probably one reason Jesus’ miracles became bigger and bigger with the telling, to the point of just making some up out of whole cloth. Not that it’s all one-upmanship–there are points being made with each miracle story. Still, once you’ve started down that road, you tend to keep going.
It’s Jesus’ sayings, his parables, his unique take on Judaism, the way he dealt with the poor, the dispossessed, the sick, the outcast, and of course women–that makes him special. He wasn’t some cut-rate first-century Middle Eastern equivalent of a glitzy Vegas magician, competing to see who had the best act.
He did, however, have the best PR team. The New Testament writings are a quantum leap beyond anything we have about Apollonius or any of the other miracle workers. But this is in part because Jesus gave them a stronger foundation to build upon. And because there was something about him, even after his death, that attracted more intellectually and spiritually complex people.
No doubt science could someday replicate many or all of the miracles attributed to these figures. But what Jesus achieved solely through the power of his mind and personality and passion–that may never be equaled.
“After his crucifixion, he was said to have risen from the dead,”
He predicted his death and resurrection and confirmed what He promised.
It’s possible both that the Gospels are midrashic AND Jesus was an historical figure. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. The fact that Mythicists can’t seem to get this through their heads is terribly frustrating.
As for the Resurrection, one of the reasons Paul seems to have had such a hard time explaining and convincing Gentiles of the Resurrection was that the idea that human beings would rise up in a new body was such a bizarre and foreign concept to the non-Jewish world. Gentiles could certainly understand and appreciate the notion of the soul living on after the body dies — something Gentile heavyweights like Plato and Aristotle even accepted — but the idea that the soul would re-enter a newly risen body was a little hard to swallow, which is why Paul is constantly trying to explain to and convince his readers that it was possible. So, yeah, suggesting that all Christian ideas are simply borrowed from paganism is objectively untrue.
Incidentally, Dr. Ehrman, when you read your old post from years ago do you notice a personal evolution? Are there things you wrote back then that you’ve changed your mind about since or have come to understand in a different way?
Most of the time I don’t remember writing the post at all, but think that it reads better than I would have expected!
Yes, it’s possible, but not very likely. The gospels are mostly midrash with some paganism and real history tossed in, and that included the writers own specific agendas. Exactly what you would expect if a skilled writer set to task to create an earthly Jesus story based on the information Paul provided about his celestial Jesus in his letters.
Tony, bro, you are so terribly confused.
And you, my friend, seem to be terribly frustrated. All I’m trying to do is help you out with some clarity.
The existence of followers of Jesus soon after he lived and Paul’s claims to have persecuted those followers (not a feather in his cap) and then saying he had spoken with leaders who knew Jesus personally – those things suggest to me that Jesus existed. And then there are the unflattering stories about Jesus (baptized by John the Baptist, predicting an imminent Kingdom that was highly unlikely to come and which did not come, killed as a criminal, etc.) – those are not the kind of things that would likely be made up if someone wanted to make up a religious leader.
In Greek mythology Danae, mother of Perseus, was a virgin impregnated by the god Zeus without sexual intercourse. According to the story he “came to her in the form of golden rain which streamed in through the roof of the subterranean chamber and down into her womb.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana%C3%AB
I guess it depends what it means to have sexual intercourse. Zeus certainly penetrated her in some kind of physical form.
Another thing with Perseus is that there’s no emphasis on Danae’s virginity. That wasn’t the point to the story.
I don’t think there is anything embarrassing about a crucified messiah. Attis was worshipped as a castrated god, after all. Attis /ˈætɪs/ (Greek: Ἄττις or Ἄττης) was the consort of Cybele in Phrygian and Greek mythology. His priests were eunuchs, the Galli, as explained by origin myths pertaining to Attis and castration. Attis was also a Phrygian god of vegetation, and in his self-mutilation, death, and resurrection he represents the fruits of the earth, which die in winter only to rise again in the spring.
There’s no nativity story or bodily resurrection in Mark, the oldest of the gospels. Is there anything unique to Jesus in Mark?
I would say that there *is* a bodily resurrectoin in Mark. What there is *not* are any appearances to his disciples after the resurrection. And yes, Mark has many distinctive featuers, including his “messianic secret”
Dr. Ehrmann,
Do you see the addition of the nativity stories in Mathew and Luke, as well as their more expansive post resurrection stories (compared to the likely more original Mark up to 16:8), in part at least, as the result of the longer period between the crucifixion and Mathew and Lukes writing? That is, there was a longer period before they were written in which more stories were told and became available for inclusion in the later gospels.
Yes, that’s certainly part of it.
Was the shaping of the stories done to gain more followers or to alter the theology or due to something else? What’s your view?
There were numerous complicated reasons for shapiong stories: including the two you mention! (But just think of all the reasons we ourselves shape stories when we retell them)
have you ever heard the claim that the readers of mark knew the children of Simon of Cyrene, the guy who helped Jesus carry his cross?
Yes, it’s a standard argument for claiming that Mark got his account from those connnected to eyewitnesses
Dr. Ehrman, here are 19 points that seem to show shaping the story of Jesus has gone too far.
One way that can happen is when the same story is told but only the names have changed.
Then, the original person existed and the person with the changed name did not.
For you, what would it take for Julius Caesar & Clementia (goddess of clemency, leniency, mercy, forgiveness, penance, redemption, absolution and salvation) shaping the story of Jesus to have done more than that?
Similarities between Julius Caesar & Clementia and Jesus Christ
1. Priestly Authority
2. Went out on the water and reassured men they could cross
3. Forgiveness and Mercy towards Enemies
4. Taking Care of the Poor
5. Enduring Persecutions
6. Beheaded Mentor
7. Betrayal by Friend/Friends
8. Awareness of Impending Death
9. Does Not Put Up a Fight against the Plot to Take His Life
10. Desires No Delay When the End Comes
11. Pierced/stabbed by Longinus
12. Wreath placed on each of their heads
13: Both died in the middle of the month in which Passover is recognized.
14. Both disavowed kingship in the world of the living
15. Julius Caesar adopts a son, Octavian, Augustus Caesar: Jesus Christ adopts a son, John the Beloved
16a. Symbol of John the Evangelist is the eagle: Symbol of Octavian, Augustus Caesar is the eagle.
16b. Symbol of Mark the Evangelist is the lion: Symbol of Mark Antony is the lion.
17. A Goddess in Polytheism is pleased with Julius Caesar. A Monotheistic God is pleased with Jesus Christ.
18. Both have an autocratic leadership style and a disdain for governing bodies (leading to their deaths).
19) For Both, a Person Whose Name Related to Rock Calls Him a Title He Is Shy to Accept
Lepidus suggested that Julius Caesar be made dictator. Julius Caesar was appointed dictator.
Lapidis in Latin is stone.
[Don’t tell people that is my title. I want a different job: consul.]
Julius Caesar resigned the post of dictator after 11 days and became a consul.
Jesus asked, who do you say I am?
Peter answered, you are the Christ.
Peter, you are the rock.
Jesus warned, do not tell anyone.
Mark 8: 29
Matthew 16: 18
Mark 8: 30
Troubled and Distressed, Both Ask Their Friends to Keep Watch and Consulting Jupiter or God through Soothsayer or Prayer Was to No Avail
Troubled and Distressed, Both Ask Their Friends to Keep Watch
Gai-us Julius Caesar
Julius Caesar raised suspicion that he wanted to be king and be a tyrant. When he was seated in front of the Temple Venus Genetrix (Venus Mother), overseeing the construction of his Forum, consuls, praetors (magistrates, judges, below consul), and senators came to deliver a resolution to honor him. He did not get up giving the impression, kings do not rise before these men. Second, after telling someone who greeted him as king that “I am not King, I am Caesar,” he accused Marullus and Caesetius of spreading the hated idea that he be king. As a result, he wanted them removed from the Senate. This had the appearance of being tyrannical.
When Caesar perceived this, he repented; and reflecting that this was the first severe and arbitrary act that he had done without military authority and in time of peace, it is said that he ordered his friends to protect him [to keep watch].
From Appian’s Roman History, Volume III, Book II, Chapter 41, 108-109, ps 425-427
Loeb Classical Library, Translated by Horace White
Son of Man, Jesus Christ
Then they came to a place named Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, “Sit here while I pray.”
He took with him Peter, James, and John, and began to be troubled and distressed.
Then he said to them, “My soul is sorrowful even to death. Remain here and keep watch.”
Mark 14: 32-34
Consulting Jupiter or God through Soothsayer or Prayer Was to No Avail
Gaius Julius Caesar
After the banquet, a certain bodily faintness came over him in the night, and his wife, Calpurnia, had a dream in which she saw him streaming with blood, for which reason she tried to prevent him from going out in the morning.
When he offered sacrifice, there were many unfavorable signs.
It was the custom of the magistrates, when about to enter the Senate to take the auspices at the entrance. Here again Caesar’s first victim was without a heart, or, as some say, the upper part of the entrails was wanting. The soothsayer said that this was a sign of death. Caesar, laughing, said that the same thing had happened to him when he was beginning his campaign against Pompeius in Spain.
The soothsayer replied that he had been in very great danger then and that now the omen was more deadly.
So, Caesar ordered him to sacrifice again.
None of the victims were more propitious; but, being ashamed to keep the Senate waiting and being urged by his enemies in the guise of friends, he went on disregarding the omens. For it was fated that Caesar should meet his fate.
Appian’s Roman History, Volume III, Book II, Chapter 41, 115-116, ps 439-443
Loeb Classical Library, Translated by Horace White
Son of Man, Jesus Christ
35 He advanced a little and fell to the ground and prayed that if it were possible, the hour might pass by him;
36 he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to you. Take this cup away from me, but not what I will but what you will.”
39 Withdrawing again, he prayed, saying the same thing.
41 Behold, Gai-us, the Son of Man, is to be handed over to sinners.
Mark 14: 35-36, 39, 41
Conspirators Who Wanted Julius Caesar Dead Distributed Bribes (Appian, Civil Wars Bk 2, 120) / Conspirators Who Wanted Jesus Christ Dead Bribed Judas
The Early Morning after the Betrayal, There Is a Trial
Julius Caesar
While these things were taking place [the night of Caesar’s murder], Mark Antony, by means of a notice sent round by night, called the Senate to meet before daybreak [to justify putting Caesar to death].
[The Senate would meet before daybreak] at the temple of Tellus [Earth Goddess, also Terra Mater], which was very near his own house, because he did not dare to go to the senate-house situated just below the Capitol, where the gladiators were aiding the conspirators, nor did he wish to disturb the city by bring in the army.
Appian’s Roman History, Chapter 43, 126, p 459-461
Jesus Christ
They led Jesus away to the high priest, and all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes came together [to put Jesus to death].
Zealot, Chapter 12: No King But Caesar, p. 157 by Reza Aslan :
The problem with this scene are too numerous to count. The trial before the Sanhedrin violates nearly every requirement laid down by Jewish Law for a legal proceeding. The Mishnah is adamant on this subject. The Sanhedrin is not permitted to meet at night. It is not permitted to meet during Passover. It is not permitted to meet on the eve of the Sabbath. It is certainly not permitted to meet so casually in the courtyard of the high priest, as Matthew and Mark claim. And it must begin with a detailed list of why the accused is innocent before any witnesses are allowed to come forth.
CONCLUSION REGARDING ASLAN’S OBJECTION: You are right, the historically accurate early morning trial after the betrayal is not Jesus’ trial but Julius Caesar’s trial.
I don’t see a connection between pagan stories and Jesus other than very generalized concepts. What I have been struggling with lately is who Paul thought Jesus was exactly. Every time I think I’ve pinpointed a place in Paul’s letters that describes Jesus as a human being, I look up the verse in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture and find there’s been a possible scribal change. There’s just so many things about Paul’s description of Jesus that is not adding up for me:
James being Jesus’ brother–very problematic, especially when Luke writes about James in Acts 15 but doesn’t identify him specifically. It’s almost as if Luke doesn’t quite know what to do with him. John is adamant there’s no brothers involved but throws in a sister for Jesus’ mother Mary who has a son named James. Mark has Jesus’ family thinking he’s crazy. If any of these writers knew about a James being a leader, they’re keeping it a secret.
Apostle Paul–
Did Peter or someone else start a group and call them the Twelve or did Jesus put them together? It’s hard to tell in Paul’s letters.
Christ accompanied Moses and the Jews’ ancestors
Jesus was possibly an angel from the OT who took on human likeness
Christ is a mystery revealed through prophetic writings
Ancestry can be traced through David (doesn’t say when or where)
Paul wrote that the Jews killed the Lord Jesus (recent past? distant past?) and the prophets (distant past?) and drove him out too (present day I’m assuming).
Born/made/came into being of a woman, under the law; then Paul says they’re all children of the free woman via Abraham’s faith.
Paul is adamant in saying that he did not receive his gospel through human origin; it’s a revelation
Most of the time when Paul describes Jesus, he quotes an OT scripture
Paul spent 15 days with Peter and at least some time with James, but all he could tell us about Jesus was by quoting the OT. I can’t help but think it’s because that’s all he knew. They’re speaking in tongues, prophesying, having visions, and seeing things in scripture they never considered before. (Btw, Josephus described others as having visions of strange things with eyewitness accounts. And Messianic figures going to the wilderness. John the Baptist *appeared* in the wilderness.) I think it’s possible that Paul thought of Jesus in strictly spiritual terms or someone who existed in the distant past.
I’m not sure how I feel about the Gospels right now. They’re much more fictional that I previously thought.
As far as mythicism kicking up, it could be because we have access to more information at our fingertips. If there’s 50 critical scholars who agree among themselves that a historical Jesus existed but can’t agree on what part about him is actually historical, maybe it’s inadvertently causing more skepticism.
Mr Ehrman. There is another way of looking at this.
It is easy to see that the Church fathers truly knew the Old Testament. But as Greek-speaking Jews, they were also fully acquainted with the transcendent God of Plato – A God wholly independent of the material universe and beyond all physical laws. A God who didn’t intervene in human conditions.
The Jews, on the other hand, believed in a God who wandered and talked with Adam, Who fought with Jacob and even lost, Who wandered and talked with Moses and even regretted when Moses contradicted him. In general; The Jews believed in a Anthropomorphistic God who could talk personal with the prophets in different ways. Example; The Word came to Jeremiah the prophet, the Word came to Isaiah, the Word came to Micah etc. The Jewish God did intervene in human conditions and was far from a transcendent God. This must have been unheard of for the Platonicists.
A creative response(From the early Christians) to the challenge from the platonists could be to say that … well, it was not God himself who wandered on earth in their Holy writings, but that it was the Son of God. Yes, even the Word that spoke to all the prophets was not God himself, but the Son of God. And so, Problem maybe solved!?
We find this view especially in the gospel of John; Before Abraham, I AM. And; In the beginning was the Word etc.
This thought is elaborated in a script called; Theophilus to Autolycus.
Theophilus to Autolycus, Book II Chapter 22. Why God is Said to Have Walked.
“You will say, then, to me: You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise? Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word, but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, John 1:1 showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence. The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place”.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02042.htm
Just to give an example how this could work out in a midrashic way.
One of the most important events in the Pentateuch is when Moses comes down from the mountain with the ten commandments, and the Israelites had made a Golden Calf.
God then turned to Moses and said:“I have seen this people, and behold, they are an obstinate people. “Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them!”
But Moses rebuked God: “No, no Lord, why does Your anger burn against Your people whom You have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?”
And the Lord regretted and changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.
Here an almighty God could (or should?) just have turned to Moses and said: “Get behind Me, Moses! For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
In Mark we find this story slightly changed. Now it is not God who wants to kill the people, but the people who want to kill Jesus:
“Then Jesus began to tell them that the Son of Man must suffer many terrible things and be rejected by the elders, the leading priests, and the teachers of religious law. He would be killed, but three days later he would rise from the dead.”
Jesus spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
Jesus rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind Me, Satan! For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
Mr. Ehrman. I want to show that the Jews believed in a Anthropomorphistic God, while the Christians believed in a transcendent God(the Father of Jesus).
John 5:36-39 “For the works that the Father has given me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me.
37 You(Jews) have never heard His voice nor seen His form(…)[WHAT?! Had the Jews never heard Gods voice or seen His form?! Who spoke to the Jews and led them through the desert, if not God?](…)
39 You(Jews) study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me”.
This verse can only be understood if we assume that the Cristians didn’t count Yahweh to be God Himself!
The concept of the resurrection of a dead body already existed in Jewish thought in the first century, but the concept of a virgin birth, as you say, did not exist anywhere in the first century world. Where do you think this belief came from? Christians will say it came from the fact that this is what really happened. Do you believe that this concept developed as an apologetic invention of the Church itself or that it developed as a legend that became so popular it was eventually incorporated and accepted as fact by the Church?
My sense is that the early Christian story tellers wanted to insist that Jesus had a miraculous birth, wiht God as his actual father, but they could not take over the pagan stories where a god becomes a human (or some other animal or physical entity) and actually had sex with Mary (the Jewish God was not like that), so their solution was a virgin birth. Based on a pagan notion without the offensive features.
“the concept of a virgin birth…Where do you think this belief came from?”
This is just my personal opinion but Dr. Ehrman may agree with me. (Let’s see if he says anything.)
I think it happened like this. The early Christians believed that the Book of Isaiah spoke about the Messiah. And they believed Jesus was the Messiah. So they picked apart Isaiah looking for clues about the Messiah/Jesus. They came across Isaiah 7:14, which states a “virgin” will conceive and give birth, and she will name him Emanuel, “God is with us”. (Importantly, it’s only the Greek Septuagint that says the girl is specifically a virgin, i.e. parthenos, while the Hebrew text simply says a “maiden,” i.e. alma, which strongly suggests this idea developed in the Greek-speaking Diaspora.) Meanwhile, the Christians were already calling Jesus “the Son of God” — Ο γιος του Θεού. So they simply put two and two together. Isaiah speaks about the Messiah. Jesus is the Messiah. Therefore, Isaiah speaks about Jesus. Isaiah hints that the Messiah will be born to a virgin. The virgin’s child will be called God is with us. Jesus is the Son of God. Ergo, Jesus is a Son of God born to a virgin. But how can a “virgin” give birth? God must have impregnated her with the Holy Spirit, of course — sans penetration, so she remained a virgin even after conception.
In other words, the legend of the Virgin Birth was created post hoc. It’s not like the Christians already knew that the virgin Mary bore Jesus and only after did they read about it in Isaiah 7:14. No, they read Isaiah 7:14 and then retroactively concluded that Jesus was born to a virgin. The technical term for this storytelling process is retcon, or retroactive continuity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_continuity
I think that’s most likely the way it happened.
Any thoughts on Jesus legitimacy (or lack of) influencing the development of the virgin birth narrative? If I understand the use of “ben” versus “ha” in the naming conventions it appears likely Jesus was not accorded the moniker “ben Joseph” and was called” ha Notzri” because he was illegitimate. Since the gospel writers were stuck with him known as Jesus of Nazareth, perhaps they felt compelled to spin away his illegitimacy by making him a demi-god, without resorting, as said, to reducing Yaweh to base instincts….?
Nah, none of that is necessary. Much of the “illegitimacy” argument was a product of early Jewish polemics against the Christian claim of Jesus’ virgin birth. In the Talmud, Jesus is regularly called a mamzer or “bastard,” not by way of any real evidence so much as from a place of ridicule.
One way to think about it is as a dialectic — i.e. argument, counter-argument, counter-counter-argument, etc. So the early Christians come across Isaiah 7:14 and conclude Jesus was born a child of a virgin, conceived via the Holy Spirit, and in their minds they’re thinking, “Bingo! See? Jesus really is the Messiah!” And then their Jewish critics would say, well, how do you know Mary wasn’t just a floozy who got knocked up by another guy? So the Christians countered with stories about how Mary’s viriginity was assiduously tested and proven (such as, for example, in the Protoevangelium of James). And so the Jews countered with the tale of Panthera, a Centurion who knocked up Mary on the sly, which not only would make Jesus a bastard but also a Roman (shocker!). And back and forth, back and forth, Jews ever on the offensive, Christians ever on the defensive. And all of this simply because the Christians who interpreted Jesus’ being born of a virgin from Isaiah never thought to consider that it would open up Jesus to accusations of illegitimacy.
And this isn’t even a unique example of this process in the Gospels. The Empty Tomb story probably came about through the same dialectic process. The first Christians were saying they saw Jesus’ resurrected body. So the Jews would question how the Christians knew it was Jesus’ body. So the Christians countered with the tale that their women went to Jesus’ tomb to annoint the body and it was gone. Of course, that just opened up the Christians to the obvious accusation by the Jews that the body was stolen. So the Christians thought, “Aha! The tomb was sealed and guards were posted!” And the Jews responded, “Well, why haven’t we heard from those guards about Jesus’ body rising from the tomb?” And the Christians answered, “Well, you see…the guards were so frightened that they fainted. Yeah, that’s it. That’s what must have happened.” And the Jews were like, “Hrmm, okay, but why didn’t the women tell us other Jews about it when it happened?” And the Christians were like, “Oh, the women were also too frightened to tell anyone. We didn’t find out ourselves until much later.” And the Jews eyed the Christians back skeptically, “Well, well, well, what a rather convenient answer.” And it’s been back and forth, back and forth ever since. Look up the Medieval Disputations, where Jews and Christians were STILL debating the very same arguments well over a thousand years later!
Why, I thought this question was settled a few decades ago –> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjz16xjeBAA
“Excuse me…
“Yes!”
“Are you a virgin?”
“I BEG your pardon!”
“Well, if it’s not a personal question: are you a virgin?”
“If it’s not a personal question! How much more personal can you get! Now, [sod] off!!”
“I think she is…”
“Definitely…”
I suspect the fact that everybody knew that Jesus was “the Son of Mary” (ie, illegitimate) led the early Christians to try to explain the blemish away. Thus the divine origin, with Isaiah 7:14 adding in virginity via mistranslation.
Prof Ehrman
There is an interesting view at the fringes of Mythicism that the figure of Jesus in the gospels was based on a composite of several ancient persons rather than on a single historical figure. I realize that neither you or most critical scholars take this kind of thing seriously but as a layman I do find myself occasionally fascinated by some of these fringe views. So just as a matter of curiosity do you know the provenance of this idea?
thanks
My sense is that it happened fairly naturally. The stories about Jesus have a lot in common with this figure, and that figure, and that other figure, but none of them actually corresponds in more than one or two ways. And so the solution is to say that Jesus is a composite.
Why is the gospel virgin birth such a big deal, and even counts as evidence for historicity? Paul stated that his celestial Jesus was the son of God. Therefore, the gospel writer needed his earthly Jesus to be born from a virgin human mother through some non-sexual process. God can do that, that’s why he is God.
As luck would have it there was a mistranslation in the LXX resulting in an (unrelated) virgin. Now the story conforms to Paul writing, but not his meaning, and as a bonus there is a psuedo prophesy fulfillment about a virgin birth. The making of a gospel. Not rocket science.
There’s still issues with the mythicist position. Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
But then he also wrote in 1 Thess. 2:14-15 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out.
I understand that the first scripture sounds a lot like Satan killed the Lord, but what about 1 Thess.?
There’s also no explanation for why Mark would make up an Aramaic-speaking rabbi who taught in parables.
1 Thess. 2:14-16 has been long recognized by well regarded scholars as an interpolation, ( a later insertion into Paul’s letter by forgers). Paul NEVER blames the Jews for the death of Jesus anywhere else. Moreover, 2:16 ends with: “but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last”. That refers to the destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70 – when Paul was almost certainly no longer alive.
The process of turning a deity into a human is called “euhemerization”. It has been done many times. The motives of “Mark” could have been many, but we do not know for sure.
There are a lot more “issues” with the historical position!
Why the authors of the NT never mentioned/talked about the Jewish Revolt of 66-70 CE?
Is not it odd to omit such an important event! I can’t figure it out.
It is often thought that the Gospel writers do refer to it (e.g., Mark 13; Luke 21; etc.). Paul was writing before the event, and the other writers are simply talking about other things for which it wasn’t relevant.
I suggest that the gospels, which were all written after the destruction (though Mark may have been started before it), have Jesus predict the destruction much like the author of Daniel “predict” some things that had already happened – in order to make his other predictions sound more believable.
One reason I do not think Jesus ever predicted the destruction of the Temple is that Paul never mentions it, which, given the central place the Temple had among all Jews of whatever persuasion, was something he could not have ignored. In Acts (admittedly not first-hand testimony), there is a scene where he even goes to worship at the Temple, with the full purification rituals. Another piece of evidence, to my mind, is Gos. Thom, which repeats many of Jesus’s saying from the gospels, and adds some others, but never mentions his prediction of its destruction.
Why do you think Paul used the Aramaic term, “Abba” both in Romans and Galatians?
It was just a common term used in certain religious contexts, kind of like Hallelujah is still today.
james Cotter June 20, 2017
have you ever heard the claim that the readers of mark knew the children of Simon of Cyrene, the guy who helped Jesus carry his cross?
Bart June 22, 2017
Yes, it’s a standard argument for claiming that Mark got his account from those connnected to eyewitnesses
have you addressed this in any of your posts on this blog?
i mean, like you said before, many people have their eyes fixed on jesus because of the gospels account. so they have their camera focused on jesus, but historically jesus would not have had the camera on him so to speak. so how would it be possible for mark readers to even know eyewitnesses in regard to this event?
No, I’ve never addressed it. My sense is that the datum may go far back in the tradition, OR Mark is using it to provide verisimilitude.
Dr. Ehrman –
I just finished reading Burton Mack’s Who Wrote The New Testament? and found it quite interesting, but it made several claims that differ from my current understanding that I would love to get your thoughts on. BTW, I’m not quite sure what to make of Mack – I’ve been following your mythicist posts and watched the Price debate, and have not found the mythicist position particularly convincing, but I wanted to hear it out, so I read Fitzgerald’s Nailed, and when I saw Mack’s book for $3 at a book sale, I thought I’d pick it up. I don’t think he’d call himself a mythicist but I assumed his work in the Jesus Seminar put him somewhere in that spectrum…a website described him as ‘Skeptical of the orthodox position regarding Jesus of Nazareth but not avowedly mythicist nor semi-mythicist,’ which feels about right from my reading.
1) Q – I’ve always been under the impression that Q was the sayings material in Matthew and Luke, that was not part of Mark. In his Appendix A on page 311, he has Q3 (along with Pronouncement Stories and Miracle Stories) as sources for Mark. (I wasn’t familiar with different layers of Q, but I assume it’s a similar idea to the various levels of D and P in the documentary hypothesis.) Is there any support for Mark being aware of Q?
2) He thinks that the Johannine community “did go its own way, probably from an early time,” but that some scholars think that John must have known about Mark because his “account of the trial and crucifixion follows Mark so closely that some form of textual dependence is probable…The passion plot was a postwar Markan creation, and it is improbable that John would have come up with the same plot independently.” My impression was that ‘John’ had written independently. Is there any reason to think he might have borrowed from Mark? Or that the passion plot is a post-war Markan creation? (I assume he means the details of the passion story, not the concept of crucifixion/resurrection, since Paul was writing in the 50s and 60s.)
3) From Chapter 2, page 47, he says, “It is very important to realize that these movements developed as schools of thought, not as religious communities of the kind that gathered in celebration of the Christ myth.” If I understand his premise correctly, he seems to be saying that the earliest Jesus communities were ‘sayings’ communities, in the Q or Gospel of Thomas tradition. He sees Jesus and the schools that developed around him in a cynic/stoic/greek philosopher vein. The ‘Christ myth,’ celebrating death/resurrection, came later… Chapter 3, page 75, “ Beginning somewhere in northern Syria, probably in the city of Antioch, and spreading through Asia Minor into Greece, the Jesus movement underwent a change of historic consequence. It was a change that turned the Jesus movement into a cult of a god called Jesus Christ.” Do you see any merit to this? Is it possible that the earliest communities were ‘teaching’ communities and then quickly (within about 25 years, he says) some started to develop into “Christ myth” communities? Could this help explain some of the gnostic/docetic/adoptionist, etc confusion and debate about who and what Jesus/Christ was? Is it possible that the believers who had visions of Christ appearing to them began to develop and spread this idea to the other communities, who may not have even known about a crucifixion, resurrection, or other Christ elements?
Sorry for the long questions, but hope they were reasonably clear if not brief.
Thanks!
This is all very interesting, but I’m afraid it’s far too much for a single comment for me (time constraints!)! How ’bout you pick a single question at a time and I’ll deal with it. Here I’ll deal with your first comment. No, I don’t believe Mack would at all identify with the mythicist position. The Jesus seminar were decidedly and emphatically NOT mythicists!
Sounds good. Many thanks again for all the great blog posts and comments. Your 6/22 and 6/23 posts about your journey were especially enlightening and helpful. They definitely resonated with aspects of my experience and gave me some things to think about in interacting with religious friends and family, so thank you for sharing.
On the issue of Q, I have long understood that Q was the inferred sayings material in Matthew and Luke that was not in Mark. Mack seems to think that Q was one of the sources for Mark. Is there any evidence that Mark was aware of Q?
There are some passages that overlap between Mark and Q, and that make some scholars think Mark knew Q. But more likely they had just heard similar stories.
Regarding the “virgin birth”: We don’t know everything about the cults and sects of the time, particularly we know next to nothing about Persian sects; possibly there was some similarity there.
But I think it more likely that this is a case of what Paula Fredriksen called “evangelistic proof-texting” – looking for passages in the OT that can be (mis)used to show it predicted Jesus. Matthew quotes the LXX translation, not the original, and then takes the passage out of context, to show that Isaiah prophesied the (virgin) birth of Jesus.
And incidentally, I think this shows Matthew either was a native Greek speaker (many Jews were) who didn’t know the Hebrew version, or else he was writing for an audience that didn’t know the Hebrew version – ie, Jews in the Diaspora, God-fearers, or pagans. Any Jew who knew the Hebrew would likely not have accepted his story.
It’s interesting that 99.99% of biblical scholars believe that the existence of Jesus isn’t even a question, but for many (especially agnostic) in the lay audience, it’s not a slam dunk. I posed this question in a discussion group (Deism, Atheism, Agnosticism, etc…) I’ve mentioned before that has close to 38,000 members. There’s about 670+ comments (with 130 people doing the commenting) so far with the results being pretty much equally split three ways: Yes–No–Inconclusive. Some of the things they’ve come up with for both sides:
Jesus exists because–
It’s more likely than not there was a person who became embellished over time.
The bible is true.
Joesphus’ writings
Early Church Fathers’ writings
Liberal commentary on Jewish law resemble those of an important Rabbi leader at the time.
The Quran is testimony to his life.
Nearly all biblical scholars agree/trust in scholarship
Scientific evidence (vague and sketchy)
No other explanation for Jews/Gentiles being brought together.
No one expected a poor, crucified messiah.
Paul knew Peter and James, the brother of Jesus or forget Paul, he was rogue anyway–go with the Gospels
Jesus does not exist because–
No one could do the acts the Gospels claim–miracles, walking on water…
Carrier and Price’s work along with some other random throw-ins (a few that were very sketchy)
Too similar to pagan mythology
No eyewitnesses
No contemporaneous evidence
The evidence we do have is too late, interpolated, or forged
Too many interpolations, forgeries, and personal agendas that caused the NT text to be changed in numerous ways.
Philo possibly influenced the story creation
Writings were targeted at the poor, enslaved, and dispossessed. Don’t think middle class, think destitute–previous expectations didn’t work, so try this one instead.
Distrust in scholarship
Constantine was never a Christian and politically motivated; the Council of Nicaea–?? (I couldn’t quite figure it out, but I think they were insinuating that the Council chose the books they wanted to include in the Canon.)
Drug-related hallucinations
Lots of people named Jesus–which one are they talking about? Therefore, a Composite Figure.
Oh yes, one more to add to the list of Jesus not existing–It’s now thought that Socrates was invented, so inventing a person was easier than we previously thought.
And then there’s Josephus’ writings:
“Thus there was a star (20) resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year… before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, “Let us remove hence.” But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (23) began on a sudden to cry aloud, “A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!”
“4. When therefore he (Herod) was about to take a journey abroad, he committed his wife to Joseph, his sister Salome’s husband, as to one who would be faithful to him, and bare him good-will on account of their kindred; (In other words, Joseph can be trusted not to have sex with her)….yada yada yada…5. When he heard that this grand secret was discovered, he was like a distracted man, and said that Joseph would never have disclosed that injunction of his, unless he had debauched her. His passion also made him stark mad, and leaping out of his bed, he ran about the palace after a wild manner; at which time his sister Salome took the opportunity also to blast her reputation, and confirmed his suspicion about Joseph; whereupon, out of his ungovernable jealousy and rage, he commanded both of them to be slain immediately;”
The appearance of an unusual star, a vision at Pentecost, a Jesus believed to be crazy, who’s forewarning an impending doom, a Herod who entrusts his wife Mariamne to Joseph because he knows he won’t touch her, then seeks to slay them, and then a random, not so nice, Salome….
This stuff is starting to look contrived…
When Paul said the pillars had nothing to add to his message, he was telling the truth. They didn’t know anymore than he did.
Are you being serious about Socrates? He decidedly was not invented.
Nice list! Yes, the vast majority of NT scholars think that there was an historical Jesus. The vast majority of NT scholars also came from highly motivated Christian backgrounds. Our blog host being a case in point. Rarely, if ever, do Atheist enter an academic career in Christian studies! Carrier may be an exception, but he is an Historian and not a biblical scholar. My point is that biblical scholarship is strongly biased toward historicity.
Good points. But it would be a mistake to think that someone from a Christian background has an agenda and someone from an atheist background does not.
Socrates as an invention–that’s what several people said in the group discussion and related it to Jesus. I’m not saying they’re right.
Yeah, it kind of shows the extremes to go with skepticism if you work hard enough at it. We have three accounts of Socrates from contemporaries — two of them his students!!
The discussion group I’m in is oftentimes ill-informed, but they’ve brought up some interesting points. (Well over 700 comments now) Several have serious doubts about Josephus’s reference to James. I’m having my own doubts as well. Is it true that the very earliest Christian apologists did not reference the Josephus passage about James?
My strong, very strong, suggestion is that if you want to learn about Josephus (or anything else in antiquity), you get your information from people who have devoted their lives to the investigation — who know Greek, can read Jospehus in Greek, know exactly what he says where, intimately, how he is at odds with himself at times, how his views developed historically, how his writings stand in relation to other sources of his day, what his intellectual heritage is, and on and on and on. Don’t get your information from someone on the Internet who has read a few passages of Josephus in English and then made pronouncements about them. There are world-class Josephus scholars who would flat-out *amaze* you with what they know about him.
The same time I was trying to connect James as a brother of Jesus in Paul’s letters is when you began the thread for the miracle stories. I didn’t know there was a correlation between the miracles in the gospels and the Old Testament miracles. I put that in the back of my mind while focusing on James, but then I began noticing something else. Paul’s letters never seem describe Jesus as a human being or that he has any awareness of a such a person. Then, I started reading Josephus, and that made it even worse. It wasn’t someone’s outside influence, just reading and noticing peculiar things. I started to feel the same way I did a few years back when I was trying to hang on to the bible being divinely inspired and Jesus being God. I have to ask myself what I’m hanging on to now?
Moses and Abraham–myths, Jesus’ brother is a part of the Christian movement only when I jump through hoops to get him there, Paul can’t say one word about the life of a man he believed was the one and only God, and an archangel running around with the patriarchs no less! Josephus is over here writing about a star hanging out in the sky for a year, far-out visions on Pentecost, Joseph, Mari, and a crazy Jesus saying, “Woe to Jerusalem!” which sounds a whole lot like Matthew’s Jesus: “Woe to the world because of offenses!” “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees!” “Woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man!” Josephus’s Jesus didn’t respond when questioned by the procurator, exactly like Mark’s Jesus. Luke describes Paul’s shipwreck that’s eerily similar to Josephus’s. Now it may be that the earliest Christians did not have any such reference to Jesus from Josephus. (I did get *that* from the internet.)
If Paul’s Jesus was completely through revelation and prophetic writings, then I have to concede to other things like there was never a tomb story in the first place; it’s entirely made up. No women at the crucifixion or the tomb; also made up. The miracle stories are another invention. After a while, all of it looks made up. That’s just to me. I don’t expect anyone else to think so, certainly not you. And I’m not even saying it with full conviction. But after a while, it does look kind of crazy and ridiculous–to me.
In Josephus and the New Testament, Mason says that the Jerusalem siege in 70 CE was greatly exaggerated by the church fathers for theological reasons. In fact, large Jewish communities outside of Rome were not physically touched and Judaism thrived in Palestine even after the war.
I do think that makes the 1 Thess. 2:14-16 passage rather suspicious. Mason quotes the early apologists’ description of the destruction of the Jews, and they sound very similar to Paul’s description.
What do you think Paul meant when he wrote that the wrath had come upon the Jews fully?
I think he meant something similar to what he says in Romans 1:18-32, that the wrath of God is being manifest among pagans who commit idolatry. God is wreaking havoc among them in very nasty ways. I don’t think it means that the Temple has already been destroyed.
Ah, okay. That makes sense.
The problem with a lot of these Facebook groups and indeed internet sites is that they discard any info that would prove them wrong.
I’m a member of one of these Facebook group but rarely if ever participate (if only to troll and fight) because I got tired of the same does God exist arguments day in and day out. When I would post archeological findings from reputable sources I often got shouted down for proselytizing.
Mr Ehrman.
Inventing OR shaping the Bible stories are not the only possibilities. The stories may have been both invented AND shaped. Invented because they are not really dealing with a historical Jesus, but shaped because they are based on a kind of midrash. Just look at the story of the woman at the empty tomb. Was this story invented or shaped? Well, as it turns out, it can be shown that it could be both.
The women at the empty tomb is often referred to as a story with a historic core, because it’s seems impossible to believe that someone would let women be the first witnesses of a resurrected Jesus. This seems to rule out the possibility that the story was invented.
In the infancy gospel of James we find Salome present at the birth of Jesus, and of course Mary the mother. But also Herod have a major part in the birth story(killing babies)
In the Gospel of Mark we find that Salome is now also present with Mary the moter at the empty tomb, and we find that Herod is yet again a participant(although it’s in Luke). So, what is the core of this story? Where did it stem from?
The story stem from when Moses was found at the river bank of the Nile. Then there were three women(maybe four) present – Miriam, Miriam’s mother?, the daughter of Pharaoh and her maidservant.
Miriam as Mary the mother of Jesus. The daughter of Pharaoh as Salome.
Now, the parents of Miriam were Jochebed and Amram. The parents of Mary were Anne and Joachim. Miriam’s mother Jochebed became Mary’s fater Joachim, and Miriam’s father Amram becomes Mary’s mother Anne.
This story is both shaped and invented!
And just to make it more obvious, because it seems like different evangelists mention different women. Which is typical in an evolving story.
John mentions Jesus mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. Three or four women depending on how it is read.
Is it possible that Salome and Mary, the wife of Clopas, could be the same woman? Yes, because different rabbinic literature states that the daughter of Pharaoh(Bithiah) was married with Caleb. And so, Mary, the wife of Clopas could be the Pharaoh’s daughter(Bithiah) wife of Clopas(Caleb). Which again explains Luke where two disciples were on their way to Emmaus, one called Cleopas, as Joshva and Caleb on their way to The Promised Land.
Then there is this Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses. Could this be the mother of Miriam, Jochebed, who was also present at the Nile? – Mary(Jochebed) the mother of James(Aaron) and of Joses(Moses)?
In Luke, Herod is keen to see Jesus do miracles, which is an allusion to the miracles Moses and the Lord made in Egypt.
What about Mary Magdalene? I belive Mary Magdalene evolved in to the story based on Micah 4:8 “And you, tower of the flock(Migdal Eder), hill of the daughter of Zion, to you it will come, the former dominion will come, the kingdom of the daughter of Jerusalem”.
I wonder…
I don’t know how you got that all straight….
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you speak about the Cainites in Lost Christianities?
More importantly, did you speak about the Cainites in your book about the Gospel of Judas?
Given the below:
The Cainites honored Judas, the betrayer, because Julius Caesar’s betrayer, Brutus, had military veterans, and in his mind the King of the Romans should be killed because The Republic of Rome has no kings!
So, when Dr. Ehrman wrote about the Gospel of Judas, what we are seeing is Jesus’ love of Judas because Julius Caesar did not want to be king and loved that someone agreed with him: he had to be turned over for assassination for the sake of SPQR.
Cainites
They regarded Judas the traitor as having full cognizance of the truth. He therefore, rather than the other disciples, was able to accomplish the mystery of the betrayal, and so bring about the dissolution of all things both celestial and terrestrial. The Cainites possessed a work entitled The Gospel of Judas, and Irenaeus says that he had himself collected writings of theirs, where they advocated that the work of Hystera should be dissolved. By Hystera they meant the Maker of Heaven and Earth.
Epiphanius also says that Judas forced the Archons, or rulers, against their will to slay Christ, and thus assisted us to the salvation of the Cross. Philaster, on the other hand, assigns the action of Judas to his knowledge that Christ intended to destroy the truth—a purpose which he frustrated by the betrayal.
There is no doubt that they applauded the action of Judas in the betrayal, but our authorities differ as to the motive which prompted him. The view that Judas through his more perfect Gnosis penetrated the wish of Jesus more successfully than the others, and accomplished it by bringing him to the Cross through which he effected redemption, is only one of them.
– Wikipedia
Yes, I deal with the Cainites in my book on the Gospel of Judas. Intriguing group!
First version of the gospel: Asinus Pollio’s biography of Julius Caesar is distributed to his veterans by means of annual remembrances
Next: Julius Caesar’s biography gets intermingled into Jewish culture via Herod the Great (King of the Jews and Messiah) and his military veterans
Next: Julius Caesar’s biography gets intermingled for the military veterans of Vespasian and Titus and we get the post-Jewish Revolt gospels: Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John
The final Hebrew version sacrifices overt military references because after the First Jewish-Roman War, the last thing to do to quell Jewish militant messianism is to militarize their gospel.
When military veterans went civilian after a time of war, some were given land to tend; so, in the following New Testament account, Jesus Christ’s Parable of the Wicked Tenants, military service is demilitarized to vineyard service.
28th Extraction: Julius Caesar Had Rebels / Jesus Had Rebels
Julius Caesar’s Account
War veterans wanted to be dismissed from the army to live their rewards instead of going to Africa for more war.
The praetor (army commander or magistrate) Sallustius was sent to straighten out the affair. He was almost killed.
Cosconius, a praetor was killed.
Galba, a praetor was killed.
Julius Caesar: I will pay you in part now and the balance with interest when others more worthy (because they fight with me in Africa, they produce when called) earn the triumph.
“All these things caused much ill-feeling at Rome. Caesar was quite aware of what was going on and disapproved of it, but, because of the general political situation, he was forced to make use of those who would do his will.” – Fall of the Roman Republic, Julius Caesar, Section 51, Plutarch
Jesus Christ’s Account
The Gospel of Mark, Chapter 12: 1-12
A man planted a vineyard.
He leased it to tenant farmers.
The man sent Representative #1 to tell the farmers I need what you produce.
Representative #1 was attacked.
Representative #2 was sent and he was attacked.
Representative #3 was sent and killed.
Other representatives were sent, some were beaten, some were killed.
What Jesus, or the preachers who told this sermon as commentary on the life of Julius Caesar, left out was the reason for the rebellion of the tenant farmers: they weren’t paid.
Jesus: I will give the vineyard to others [ who will give me the produce at the proper time. Now is the time to go to war in Africa, not rest on your laurels.]
And elsewhere, Jesus speaks of banquet invitations and those who should come did not come. So, I think of the banquet of triumph.
Prof. Ehrman,
I’ve really enjoyed your books and your lectures! It’s disappointing to see the apparent rise in popularity of the mythicist position; there’s clearly zero evidence to support it.
I can see why someone would want to deify a human being (particularly Jesus), but I don’t see early Christians having anything to gain from humanizing an angelic/heavenly being or deity. In fact, you’d think that would be a harder sell.
In your opinion – would there be any benefit/reason for the Gospel writers to want to humanize (or euhemerize, as Carrier loves to say) a heavenly Joshua crucified in space into an earthly Jesus crucified by the Romans?
Thanks!
I can’t imagine that the idea would even have occurred to them!!
“It’s disappointing to see the apparent rise in popularity of the mythicist position; there’s clearly zero evidence to support it.”
Zero evidence?
Maybe the gospel writers humanized Jesus by mistake.
Aside from the fact that there were pagan dead and rising gods, or Jewish mystery religions, or Zoroastrianism, etc., as Ehrman points out, there’s no evidence the gospel writers knew anything about them. It’s not like the gospel writers necessarily had access to countless pieces of ancient texts like we do today.
Even if there were some manuscript that contained the gospel stories but took place in some sort of celestial realm, it still wouldn’t prove Jesus didn’t exist, it would just show the gospel writers may have assimilated multiple religious traditions in their embellishments of Jesus. And yet, as far as I know, there isn’t even such a manuscript.
So all the supposed evidence for mythicism is circumstantial.
And, correct me if I’m wrong here, but isn’t it true that even the Gnostics, with all their Aeons, and Sophia, and Pleroma etc. still didn’t argue an earthly Jesus never existed?
Granted, this is mostly anecdotal, but what purpose would it serve to take an ‘existing’ celestial being, and place him into a real world historical context, just to spend the next several centuries trying to explain why or how the crucified ‘man’ Jesus was actually God? Especially considering a crucified Messiah was the biggest stumbling block to potential Jewish converts.
So, it looks to me as though there really is zero evidence for mythicism. It simply doesn’t make sense and it doesn’t fit history.
Well, I’m not an expert with any of these things, but I can tell you my understanding of it thus far:
Dying and rising gods–I don’t see the Jesus story tied to any particular pagan myth but more of a generalized concept that was prevalent in the first century.
Writings that have Jesus placed in a celestial realm–The Ascension of Isaiah. It’s an interpolated mess but does have a heavenly Jesus.
“And, correct me if I’m wrong here, but isn’t it true that even the Gnostics, with all their Aeons, and Sophia, and Pleroma etc. still didn’t argue an earthly Jesus never existed?” —- I see it like this, people in the first century were steeped in superstitious beliefs, so a heavenly Jesus was just as real as an earthly one to some of them. I’m not sure they would argue such a thing. And my question to that is, is there an example that can be given for the argument of someone’s existence? Who do we have on record for questioning the validity of someone’s existence and when?
As far as their purposes go, Bart has said himself that we don’t know the intentions of an author.
But basically, I don’t think Paul’s letters are clear in communicating that he knew about an earthly man named Jesus.
Have you changed your mind about Galatians 4:4?
Mr. Ehrman. Galatians 4:4 is pretty clear; “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law”. It speaks for itself. I believe Paul here in the Galatians speaks about a “earthly” mortal Jesus of flesh and blood, and not a celestial one, as some have proposed. I have put “earthly” in quotation marks for a reason.
We often think of God, the Father, as the God of The Old Testament. This I think is a misconception. When Jesus says; “No one knows the father except the son”, He clearly does not mean that the same God who spoke to Moses and gave him the laws. This is not the god who spoke with Adam, who warned Noah, who tested the faith of Abraham etc. The god of the Old Testament was known to the patriarchs and prophets! The unknown Father, The God only known to Jesus, is a Transcendent god.
What about the God of the Old Testament – Yahweh? I think Yahweh became the Son. The Son made the world together with the Father. The Son was before Abraham. The Son gave Moses the laws. The Son turned the water in the Nile into blood, as Jesus turned the water of the wedding into wine.
This was a docetic Jesus before he, in the fulness of the time, became incarnated as the Son of David, based on Nathan’s prophecy. Nathan’s prophecy gave promise of a son of David, after the flesh, who would rule forever. Solomon was a son of David after the flesh, but God rejected him soon because of his devil’s worship. How could God’s prophecy end up so wrong? Perhaps God’s prophecy wasn’t all that wrong after all? Could there be another solution to the prophecy the scribes had overlooked? I think this is the origin of the Passion history. Adonijah, the rejected sønn av David, should be raised up and establish the throne of his kingdom forever. Adonijah should be raised up – born again – as Jesus says to Nicodemus.
Look, the wedding at Cana is a riddle. It symbolizes the marriage between God and his people, Israel.
The marriage is a poetic description of when Yahweh decided to come down and free the Israelis from the Egyptian yoke. We find this sort of symbolism(marriage between the Lord and virgin Israel) used by some of the prophets.
There were six stone water jars used for the Jewish rites of purification, symbolizing the 600.000 Israelis now ready to be purified by the Lord. His “mother” Mary (Miriam) was present, but this was just in the beginning of all the miracles in Egypt.
Moose on the loose.
Re Galatians 4:4–
I think “born” is technically incorrect as you’ve stated in Orthodox Corruption. Paul quoted a preexisting hymn in Philippians 2:7 that reads “being made in human likeness”, and in How Jesus Became God, you wrote that part of the hymn as “And coming in the likeness of humans”. As far as I can tell when Paul wrote Gal. 4:4 he was reflecting back on his knowledge of the hymn.
Of course, you know that Paul goes on to write about the two covenants of Hagar and Sarah as well as the physical Jerusalem versus the one above. He also described Sarah as being their mother, so it’s really hard for me to think that Paul had any knowledge of Jesus being the son of Mary or coming into physical existence through a natural birth. He never mentioned Joseph as his father either. He said several times that God was his father.
Something else that I’m puzzled over is what exactly Paul thought a hymn was. In 1 Corinthians 14, he emphasized the importance of prophecy. The Spirit produced revelations, knowledge, prophecies, and words of instruction. He wrote that if he sang in the spirit, he would also sing with *understanding*. Even if he was referring to singing in tongues, why would they need to understand it? What is there to gain with understanding a song? Then he went on to write, “26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a HYMN, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.”
I have to wonder if Paul was grouping in hymns as a type of revelation. If that’s so, then that would mean the Philippians hymn was a revelation as well.
Even translating GINOMAI in this way, I don’t see how there is an option to saying that he came from a human woman, i.e., was “born” (the word can have that nuance, of course).
Doesn’t 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 imply that Paul thought of Jesus as a living person?
In my opinion, Paul meeting the lord’s brother and saying Jesus was born of a woman and saying he was crucified, makes it reasonably clear that Paul believed in an earthly man named Jesus.
Furthermore, one would think that anyone from that period would know that being crucified referred to Roman execution. So if Paul did not mean crucified in the standard sense, but in some celestial sense, wouldn’t he have made that distinction in his writings? It’s like Bart mentioned in his debate, everyone knew exactly what being crucified meant, so Paul didn’t need to elaborate or explain it.
Bart,
Could you respond to this?
The “Born Again” Narrative in John 3: An Aramaic Impossibility? Well, No!
https://katachriston.wordpress.com/page/2/
Posted on August 26, 2011by David
“Bart Ehrman has published an argument concluding the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in Jn 3 “could not have happened, at least not as it is described in the Gospel of John” (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, p. 155). We present Ehrman’s argument here with brief critique. As a preview, our main gripe with Ehrman’s presentation (more fully explained below) is that whereas Ehrman supposes an original Aramaic conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus would necessarily have had Jesus using an Aramaic word which can only mean “from above,” but not “second time,” it turns out the ancient Aramaic versions we do actually have, such as the Syriac Peshitta, have Aramaic men derish (“again” -or a second time- …which can indeed also mean “from above,” or lit. “from the head”[1] Both the Greek text and Aram. translations suggest two possibilities: (1) the possibility of an original Aram. conversation (with Ehrman we presume Christ and Nicodemus would have probably spoken Aramaic, from which the Gospel of John was translated into Greek) with double entendre on men derish or (2) the possibility that the narrative considered from the perspective of both Aramaic and Greek reads just fine with a single meaning of either ανωθεν/anothen (Gk.) or men derish (Aram.) in view, as “again” without inductively presuming there absolutely had to have been an original double entendre (which is certainly possible, but is not an absolute exegetical necessity, but an inference, however plausible it may be made to seem by ancillary arguments). Either way, (1) since there is an Aramaic word that allows the double entendre, or (2) since it is not an absolute exegetical necessity to presume the narrative requires a double entendre in the first place, Ehrman’s novel argument has come to ruin.
Here is Ehrman’s original argument:
“In the Gospel or John chapter 3, Jesus has a famous conversation with Nicodemus in which says, “You must be born again.” The Greek word translated “again” actually has two meanings: it can mean not “a second time” but also “from above.” Whenever it is used elsewhere in John, it means “from above” (Jn 19:11, 23). That is what Jesus appears to mean in John 3 when he speaks with Nicodemus: a person must be born from above in order to have eternal life in heaven above. Nicodemus misunderstands, though, and thinks Jesus intends the other meaning of the word, that he has to be born a second time. “How can I crawl back into my mother’s womb, he asks, out of some frustration. Jesus corrects him: he is not talking about a second physical birth, but a heavenly birth, from above. This conversation with Nicodemus is predicated on the circumstance that a certain Greek word has two meanings (a double entendre). Absent the double entendre, the conversation makes little sense. The problem is this: Jesus and this Jewish leader in Jerusalem would not have been speaking Greek, but Aramaic. But the Aramaic word for “from above” does not also mean “second time.” This is a double entendre that works only in Greek. So it looks as though this conversation could not have happened—at least not as it is described in the Gospel of John” (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, p. 155).
Note that Ehrman does not actually specify what exact Aramaic word or phrase he has in mind. We will proceed on the assumption that the Aramaic men derish in the Syriac Peshitta (and also the Old Syriac) could have served nicely in an original Aramaic conversation with Jesus and Nicodemus, later translated into Koine Greek in the Gospel of John narrative, and still later translated into our early Aramaic versions which are still extant using the Aramaic men derish.
As we have seen, (1) if we presume double entendre, men derish (lit. from the head) s translated “again” -i.e. a second time, and serve the purpose of double entendre just fine;[1] but that, alternately, (2) if it is not absolutely irrefutable to presume double entendre in the Greek narrative (which it isn’t) the narrative in both Gk. and Aram. could make perfect sense understanding the respective words to simply mean “again” without any double entendre.
Let us look at possibility (2) more closely.
Here is an English translation[1] of the dialog as it occurs in the original Aramaic of the Peshitta:
John 3:3 – “Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, If a man is not born AGAIN he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
John 3:4 “Nicodemus said to him, How can an old man be born again? Can he enter again a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?”
Verse 4 follows quite nicely from verse 4 in the Peshitta under the second hypothesis Nicodemus would have understood “again” in vs. 3 to mean… well.. “again“(!), and his reply in vs. 4 would have made perfectly good sense -no “double entendre” required (nor was it ever supposed by any of the numerous early ancient translations of the Greek NT into other languages (versions), all of which simply render Jn 3:3 with equivalents of “again.” In the ancient world it seems the natural reading “again” was obvious and unanimous. No direct ancient evidence for anything else exists in Aramaic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Latin, or any other language into which the Greek text was translated).
Here also is an interlinear translation from peshitta.org with Jn 3:3 in red; the footnote to their English rendering “again” has Lit. ‘from the start’ (‘over again’).
The final bone we have to pick concerns Ehrman’s monolithic/uncompromising understanding of the Greek text.
Concerning the Greek text, Ehrman wrote “Whenever it [Gk. ανωθεν/anothen] is used elsewhere in John, it means “from above” (Jn 19:11, 23). That is what Jesus appears to mean in John 3 when he speaks with Nicodemus…”
Maybe ανωθεν was meant to convey the same meaning in John 3 and maybe it wasn’t. If it wasn’t there is no problem with the consistency of the narrative either originally understood or subsequently translated as “again” in either Greek or Aramaic. If it was, the Aramaic men derish, literally “from the head” also means “again” and is so translated in every major English translation of the Aramaic version into English, so there is no problem supposing an original dialog in Aramaic with a double entendre.
How have the major English translators rendered the Greek text? Most major translators have not rendered the Greek narrative Ehrman’s way. Using http://biblehub.com/john/3-3.htm we find a minority of 4 translations using Ehrman’s preferred rendering “from above”; 17 translations have “again.”
Unless the majority not only “might” be wrong to translate John 3:3 as they have, but are absolutely and definitively incorrect, Ehrman’s argument has lost its punch at the level of the Greek text in addition to having completely evaporated at the level of his assertions about an underlying Aramaic narrative. But even on the assumption, with no argument in Ehrman’s book, that the preferred rendering of a majority of our major English translations of the Greek narrative were just flat wrong, that too would work out fine if an original Aramaic narrative had men derish where John used anothen. The narrative potentially reads just fine in both languages on either assumption about the correct meaning of anothen. Ehrman’s novel argument is creative, but it fails to convince.
__________________
[1] Cf. http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/PayneSmith/index.php?p=540 Etheridge, Murdock, Bauscher, Lamsa, and peshita.org all render it as “again” or “anew.” Men derish suggests from the “head” or beginning of a process (cf. Heb. bereshith: “in the beginning”). Men derish also occurs in the Old Syriac version.
SEE ALSO OUR EXTENDED CRITIQUE OF BART EHRMAN’S LOST CHRISTIANITIES HERE: http://katachriston.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/bart-ehrmans-lost-christianities-a-critique-part-1/
Yes, someone else who is an expert in Aramaic has suggested the derish option to me, but has also indicated that it’s a bit of a stretch. But as to the double entendre in the Greek, I’m afraid I heartily disagree with these comments.
Thanks Dr. Ehrman!
I hope you will excuse me a little longer, mr. Ehrman, because there is much much more of these similarities depending on Exodus.
Look at the Healing at the Pool in John 5. A man had been sick for thirty eight years. Why does the gospel mention this man’s age? Does his age matter? As a matter of fact it does! The lame man is “Israel” stuck in Egypt for 450 years(Acts 13:20). 38 year multiplied by 12(a symbol of the 12 tribes) is roughly 450. 38×12=456! It was a Sabbath, and not any Sabbath but the only Easter Sabbath! ‘Pick up your mat, Israel, it’s time to go home.’ We find variations of this narrative also in the synoptic gospels.
But when the Israelites went out of Egypt there came a “Legion” of Egyptian soldiers after them, but all ended up drowned in the Red Sea – like Pigs!
And what about the feeding of the 5000? The Israelites got five books written by Moses and two stone tablets with the Ten Commandments. And when we sum up the numbers (5.000 x 12 x 5 x 2 = 600.000) we find the number of Israelites fed in the wilderness .
Galatians 4:4–
Your response is surprising!
I was just rereading my comment for Galatians 4:4 from July. After reading Galatians again for the umpteenth time, I do believe Paul meant Jesus was born/made—however you want to put it— from a human woman. From what I can tell, he used the same type of wording in 1 Corinthians 11:12, so not using specifically the word “born” doesn’t really mean anything.
He does go on to say that Isaac was by (again he doesn’t use the word born-correct?) the power of the Spirit because Sarah was past the age for bearing children. So I’m thinking he believed the same for Jesus. He was the result of a divine promise but still came through a human by the power of the Spirit. Paul doesn’t mention Sarah’s name in this section either because that’s not relevant to his point. Naming Jesus’ mother would be irrelevant as well.
What do you think?
1 Cor. 11:12 doesn’t have a verb at all (it is to be supplied from the context); nor does Gal 4:23 — it is to be supplied from the verb “had” in v. 22. But yes, this does show that for Paul to talk about someone being born he doesn’t have to use the verb GENNAO.
Paul wrote that the Jews killed Jesus. What do you think he meant by that?
I think he meant that it was Jewish opposition to Jesus that led to his death. (You get the same kind of thing in the book of Acts, where the apostles preach to the crowds in Jerusalem and say “you killed him.” Obviously the crowds being addressed did not *personally* kill him.)
Do you think the pre-Pauline hymns (such as Philippians) were revelations?
I’m afraid I don’t what you mean. Are you asking if I think God authored those passages through the Holy Spirit? No, I don’t think so.
In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul grouped hymns in with words of instruction, prophecies, tongues and interpretations, singing in tongues and singing with understanding. The Philippians hymn was a pre-Pauline revelation is what I’m getting at.
Hymns were more than a song or poem for the early church. They were also prophecies. I’m asking if you agree with that.
I take it to be a very conscientious literary composition, not an oral one.
“I take it to be a very conscientious literary composition, not an oral one.”
I think I may be coming across as though I’m asking if you, personally, believe hymns to be prophecies and revelations. I’m not. What I’m trying to say is that early Christians had revelations then wrote them down as hymns. One example being the Philippians hymn.
Anyway, I finished Josephus and the New Testament. First of all, I had already suspected that the author of Luke-Acts was using Josephus as one of his sources, and after reading Mason’s book, I’m convinced that he was. On pgs. 291-92, Mason states,”In several cases–Agrippa I’s death, Felix and Drusilla, Agrippa II and Berenice–Luke’s narrative seems to depend squarely on such information as Josephus presents…Most telling, however, is Luke’s presentation of Christianity as a ‘philosophical school’ within Judaism, alongside the other schools but based on the teachings of its founder Jesus.”
He goes on to explain why he thinks so, but it’s lengthy. It’s actually really fascinating how he pulls the writings together.
As for the authenticity for the Testimonium Flavianum, it’s very problematic: “What, then, is the value of the testimonium flavianum for the reader of the NT? Limited. Paradoxically, the intense effort to reconstruct the “original” reading, in order to make it historically useful, itself diminishes the value of the passage…No matter how convincing a restoration may seem to any given interpreter, he or she will not be able to put much weight on it in the course of scholarly argument.” (pg. 236)
He does make a convincing argument for the James passage being authentic. Unfortunately, he doesn’t address why Jesus ben Damneus is not the brother that’s mentioned within the passage. He knows that in John’s gospel none of Jesus’ brothers are believers then turns around and cites Acts as evidence for James being his brother while knowing full well that there’s no explicit reference for it! However, Mason acknowledges that we have none of Josephus’s works before Eusebius.
All in all, I think the strongest evidence for Jesus’ existence are his teachings, especially those that go back to Aramaic, and him being from Nazareth. Paul’s writings are puzzling but may not entirely represent what was happening within the earliest stages of the movement. At times, he seems completely rogue! I mean, he did refer to the gospel as “my gospel.” As a scholar, the historical Jesus may be crystal clear, but for a layperson it’s not the easiest thing to sort out.
I don’t take the Philippians hymn to be a revelation; it is a consciously and carefully constructed literary composition, not, say, something taken down from a prophecy given orally in a worship context.
On another online forum, I saw someone mention Paul’s use of “James the brother of Jesus” as evidence of Jesus’ historicity. I agree with him as far as that goes, but he went further. In response to mythicist claims about Paul’s uses of that phrase (which say that Paul was referring merely to a spiritual brother of Jesus), this person said that Paul uses “other Greek grammar” when referencing spiritual fraternity. Not finding any evidence of this myself, I messaged this person privately and he said that you were his source, Bart, though he implied he couldn’t remember where specifically he had heard or read it. Any comment?
Note that what I’m asking is orthogonal to the question of whether James was a cousin or stepbrother of Jesus, rather than being his actual brother. I’m just asking about a literal blood relationship, as opposed to a spiritual relationship like Paul claims of Titus in 2 Corinthians 2:13.
No, I’ve never talked about a separate grammar for Paul’s references to spiritual vs. blood relatives.
I know that Richard Carrier’s grand, Mythicist argument is a round about way of saying that the Christian Jesus started as the same figure as Joshua son of Jehozadak from Zechariah. I realized early on that the argument was nonsense, but it was only about a week ago that it dawned on my just *how* nonsensical it was. About a week ago, I started thinking of a huge number of questions I’d never considered before and I’ve never heard Carrier give answers for, like:
– If the theory is true, why didn’t Paul and the Gospel authors know that Joshua son of Jehozadak *wasn’t* a descendant of King David?
– Why did the Gospel authors create new biographical details for Jesus rather than keeping consistent with the details from the Old Testament?
– Why did the Gospel authors re-name his father Joseph?
– Why do none of the New Testament authors ever reference Old Testament passages that mention Joshua son of Jehozadak and say that these are passages that mention Christ?
– Last, if the theory is that Jesus specifically *started* as a celestial being, that’s clearly not true for Joshua son of Jehozadak, so wouldn’t the entire theory need to be re-framed to say he started as being understood as an earthly being, then was understood as a celestial being, and then *again* as an earthly being?
I have no idea how Carrier would answer questions like these. It’s amazing how an already convoluted idea can seem even *more* convoluted when you just consider some very basic questions.
The problem with the thesis of Jesus historicism is how a non-descript sage in Palestine in the first century who said or did nothing particularly unique managed to institute a world shattering religion. None of the contemporary historians mention him. (Josephus is clearly an interpolation) The event which stands out in the first century as the key to understanding this is the Roman-Jewish War. The destruction of temple Judaism surely marked the beginning of the religion as the Jews’ desperate plea to God to save them from the Romans went unanswered. Once this is understood the references in the church fathers (Eusebius and others) to the late first century institution of the religion fall into place. We have not only a thesis that stands up to what we know about how religions are formed sociologically but also in full accord with the ancient documents. Festinger has shown in When Prophecies Fail that beliefs arise almost from nothing and actually Messianism gets stronger as prophecies fail, as they did in the Roman-Jewish War. All of the Christian writings were written after the War, and there are allusions to this fact in Paul’s letters. The gospels and Acts were clearly written after AD70 and after Paul’s letters to counter the then prevalent heresy of uncertain or substitutionary crucifixion which was carried forward eventually into Islam.
What about the first century Roman historian Tacitus?
Or Pliny?
Does their historical writings prove Jesus existed
Tacitus, a Roman historian (c. A.D. 55 — 120). Tacitus simply said that “Christus, from whom [the Christians] derived their name, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius Caesar” (Annals 15.44).
Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia et Pontus (now in modern Turkey) wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan around 112 AD and asked for counsel on dealing with Christians. The letter (Epistulae X.96) details an account of how Pliny conducted trials of suspected Christians who appeared before him as a result of anonymous accusations and asks for the Emperor’s guidance on how they should be treated.[1][2]
Pliny wrote in 112; Tacitus in 115. They are both second century authors.
Bart, all of the questions I’ve asked so far were scholarly type. This one is a little bit personal. Nevertheless, I hope you can respond.
As a top scholar of early Christianity, does it bother you that so many people believe in nonsense regarding historical Jesus? I mean, eveyrbody has some kind of opinion about who Jesus was or wasn’t and a lot of them have some unfounded ideas: ‘Jesus was a political revolutionary’, ‘Jesus had wife and kids’, ‘Jesus never died on the cross – he went to India’, ‘everything in the gospel is 100 % true’, ‘Jesus never existed’ etc.After all, my colleague who is an expert on medieval history of Croatia doesn’t have that kind of problem since 99,9 % of population in Croatia doesn’t give a damn about medieval kings and queens. Considering peculiar position of any scholar of early Christianity: Do you ever feel like you are doing Sisyphus job?
Thank’s.
Kind regards.
It doesn’t bother me too much because most of the many billions of people who have ever lived have believed things that are nonsense (think of views of the human disease, or weather, or astronomy, or … religion up to, say, 1800!). So I don’t see why views of the historical Jesus would likely be any different. The goal of critical scholarship is to help people come to views that are better supported by evidence, rather than nonsense. It’s admittedly an uphill battle. People are tenacious in their views, even in the face of evidence.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you agree?
“Ancient myths are NOT what Jesus’ resurrection is based upon. This is in part because resurrection in the bodily sense was an almost exclusively Jewish belief, and among Jewish people resurrection was reserved for the future, viz. a resurrection en masse at the end of time.”
I’m afraid I don’t know quite what it means. Obviously Jesus’ resurrection is not the same as the resurrectoin at the end of time, and could well have been modeled, in a Jewish guise, on Greek and Roman myths about people living in heaven after they died.
Dr. Ehrman,
So then what exactly was unique about the resurrection of Jesus? I thought you said that it was not influenced by myth.
When did I say that?
Prof. Ehrman: “The precise Christian understanding about what happened Jesus after his death, that his actual body was restored to life and made immortal, is not attested of any pagan figure in antiquity.”
That’s exactly right. But the idea was deeply influenced my pagan understandings of people who were taken up to live with the gods after they passed from this world.
Dr Ehrman,
“But the idea was deeply influenced MY pagan understandings of people who were taken up to live with the gods after they passed from this world”.
I think MY it’s a typo for BY, isn’t it? (sorry I’m Italian). If is it a typo, since the first followers of Jesus was Jews, how is it possible they were influenced by paganism?
Thank you,
Michele Fornelli
Yes, it’s a scribal corruption of the text. In my book on How Jesus Became God, I explain how non-Jewish ideas were often influential on Jewish and Christian. They all lived in the same world — just as American culture has come to dominate those of others today I suppose.
Dr Ehrman, I apologize, but with “scribal corruption” are you referring to your typo or with who wrote the gospels and altered them? I ask this because I usually find this expression in reference to the scribes of the biblical text and I wouldn’t like to have misunderstood your kind reply.
Thanks a lot,
Michele Fornelli
Sorry — it was a joke. I was referring to my typo.
Dr Ehrman,
on this site https://freethoughtnation.com/bart-ehrman-mythicists-arguments-are-fairly-plausible/ (I think it is by D.M. Murdock aka Acharya S, ha ha! ) a statement of yours is reported:
“Mythicists’ arguments are fairly plausible, Ehrman says. According to them, Jesus was never mentioned in any Roman sources and there is no archeological evidence that Jesus ever existed.”
Actually, they state that you have said this sentence in an interview for npr.org also putting the link to the interview where this statement is actually reported https://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/did-jesus-exist-a-historian-makes-his-case.
I guess it’s not true that you consider them “fairly plausible”, among other things the interview is from 2012, when “Did Jesus Exist?” has been published.
I wondered, however, if it was something that you actually said but that decontextualized wants to attribuite to you a thought totally opposite to yours or if instead the site npr.org has actually invented it?
Thank you,
Michele Fornelli
No, I have never said that the mythicists arguments were fairly plausible. That was completely misreported.
BTW, I almost *never* say this about an author, but Acharya S was a flat-out horrible “researcher” (it’s not actually clear if she ever did any research); her book on Jesus was probably the worst book discussing “history” that I’ve ever read — flat out mistake after mistake after mistake by someone who simply, literally, didn’t know what she was talking about (not just about Jesus, and the Gospels, and the New Testament — but about the facts of ancient history, all over the map). I talk about it in my book Did Jesus Exist. She got very upset with what I said, but the reality is that she just didn’t know….. When I first read it, at first I thought it was a spoof!
He did say the words “mythicists arguments are fairly plausible”. The link you provided has the audio clip, but Acharya S. took it out of context which was typical of her. She even sent the quote to R. Price which shows how crazy confused she was most of the time. Her reading and listening skills were much to be desired. When listening to the clip in its entirety, it’s more than obvious that it’s not an argument in favor of mythicism.
Regarding Galatians 4:4, do you think Paul was referring to a human woman or an allegorical woman?
Human, definitely. (I’m not sure what an allegorical woman is? I know what an allegorical figure from Scripture or another literary text is…)
I misunderstood what you said about GINOMAI a while back and just wanted to clear it up.
The sources I use to look up Greek words probably aren’t the best, but when I encounter the Greek that Paul uses, he seems to use a lot of prepositions and linking verbs rather than action verbs—or no? This seems especially true anytime he writes about how women came from men first (Adam) even though men are here because of women. I don’t think he uses the word “born” but instead says things like, “of” or “by”. So his use of GINOMAI—what does he mean exactly? Is he saying that Jesus was an angel, but when God sent him, he was created as a human by a woman, just like all of us are? (I’m having a hard time articulating what I’m trying to say, so I hope this is making sense!)
I think I follow what you’re saying, but I don’t know about the hesitancy to use action verbs. Doesn’t sound right at first blush, but I’ve never looked specifically at the issue, and haven’t heard of anyone who addresses it.
Hi, Patty.
You might be interested in Posts 111 and 124 in this thread:
https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-historical-jesus/on-richard-carriers-doubts-jshj-15-2-3/page-6/#p6079
https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-historical-jesus/on-richard-carriers-doubts-jshj-15-2-3/page-7/#p6096
I list and describe there some 22 cases in the LXX and Josephus where γίνομαι εκ (ginomai ek, the preposition ek meaning ‘out of’) followed by a woman or γίνομαι followed by a man in the dative case (signifying ‘to’) simply means birth in the normal sense.
This a natural way of saying ‘to be born’.
Thank you Robert. The links were very helpful.
Dr Ehrman,
as you’ve rightly pointed out, cultures are dynamic and it’s normal for them to influence each other. However, you’ve also repeatedly emphasized that in comparative religion studies there is an excessive tendency to think that everything depends on something else. Moreover, you’ve repeatedly rejected the parallels between Jesus and pagan deities. So, if I’ve not misunderstood your thinking, the Greek influence you’re talking about is mostly related to the general framework of the cultural climate and not to the specific stories and parallels between Jesus and pagan religions. For example the virginal birth: there are no parallels between Jesus and other deities but the Greek culture of miraculous births of extraordinary men may have been the background, right?
Thanks a lot,
Michele Fornelli
I’m not sure what you mean that I reject the parallels between Jesus and pagan deities? One of my major emphases in my writings is how the stories of other divine men influenced the stories Christians told about Jesus. Are you referring to the fact that there aren’t any pagan gods born of a virgin or raised back into their physical bodies after being dead for three days? That in fact is true: but lots and lots of things said about Jesus have significant parallels to other figures from his time and long before.
I’ve read in Huffpost for “Did Jesus Exist?” that you’ve wrote:
“The alleged parallels between Jesus and the “pagan” savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination”
Yes, I was referring ot the parallels that are cited by the mythicists to show Jesus didn’t exist (e.g., that Mithras was born on December 25 and had a virgin mother and … and and and). There are plenty of real parallels.
Dr Ehrman,
could you mention a real parallel for example?
Thank you,
Michele Fornelli
That he was miraculously born, was a child prodigy, could heal, cast out demons, affect the weather; that he ascended to heaven at the end of his life and now lives in heaven, e.g.
Dear Dr Ehrman, Apologies for resurrecting (pun intended) an old post but I am relatively new to the forum and am working my way through those issues that particularly interest me. I have read your book ‘Did Jesus Exist’ and am convinced by your arguments, but I have come across a variation on the Mythicist approach which is to accept that Jesus existed but in an earlier age. I know you deal briefly in your book with G A Wells’ argument that Jesus may have been a supernatural being living in obscurity some 150 years before Paul. Another book, which I came across by chance in a second hand book store (Jesus: One hundred years before Christ by Alvar Ellegard, a Swedish academic), sets out a reasonably well argued case that Jesus was the Teacher of Righteousness (of Dead Sea Scrolls fame) and was ‘transplanted’ for various reasons into the first century CE. There have been other similar books but this one seems to be the most scholarly I have come across. What is your general view of the ‘Jesus lived a lot earlier’ claims?
No, Jesus could not have been the Teacher of Righteousness. That was an old view that has been shown to be impossible because of the dates (the Teacher of Righteousness was long dead by the time Jesus was active, and there are huge differences between them). There’s no way that Jesus could have been living a century before Paul and the others.
I’ve always found it interesting that these mythicists often use invention and storytelling and the use of people places and things in them to prove who knows what.
Eugene O’Neal (my favorite and considered the inventor of modern American theater) used all three of these elements in his plays in fact most writers more often than not use real events and people they personally knew or acquainted with in their writings, i would think that it would be hard to near impossible to invent a whole character and not use these three elements from real life. It shows if nothing else a complete lack of imagination on their part.
My favorite argument against mythicists is the existence of James the brother of Jesus (if Jesus didn’t exist, surely his own brother would’ve known about it). I love using Galatians and Josephus to show the existence of James, but I’d like to add the James Ossuary to the list of evidence (if credible).
Do you think the James Ossuary is authentic?
No, I’m afraid not.