(14 votes, average: 4.86 out of 5)
Loading...This is the final, and most important, of my posts on the miracles of Jesus. In it I raise the question – without being able to come to an absolutely definitive answer – of whether Jesus was thought to be a miracle worker already in his life time or if, instead, miracles came to be ascribed to him only later by followers who believed he had been raised from the dead. I incline toward the latter view.
To set the stage for and make sense of what I have to say, I include the final comments from the previous post:
**********************************************************
In the other two Synoptics there is a different understanding, one that can be seen most clearly in the saying preserved in Matthew 11:2-6. Here we are told that John the Baptist, who is now in prison, has heard about “the deeds of Christ,” and sends some of his disciples to him to ask if he is the one to come at the end of time, or if there is someone else. Jesus replies: “Go and report to John the things you hear and see: the blind come to see and the lame walk; lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised… and blessed is the one who takes no offense at me.” Is the end upon us, John wants to know? Yes indeed. Jesus’ miracles demonstrate it. Or as he says later in Matthew, “If it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matthew 12:28).
This appears to be the earliest interpretation of Jesus’ miracles. They are signs that the Kingdom of God will soon arrive. In other words, they coalesce with Jesus’ apocalyptic message.
There is a deeply seated logic to seeing and portraying the miracles in this way. At the earliest known layer of our traditions, Jesus’ spectacular deeds are, in effect, proclamations of the Kingdom: real, tangible declarations about the realm of God that is very soon to arrive. In the Kingdom of God there will be no natural disasters; Jesus controls nature even now. In the Kingdom there will be no more demons; Jesus casts out demons now. In the Kingdom there will be no more disease or bodily ailments or physical impairments; Jesus heals the sick now. In the Kingdom there will be no more death; Jesus raises the dead now.
When storytellers recounted the life of Jesus in the days, years, and decades after his death, they not only delivered his teachings (in their own words, of course). They showed that …
The rest of this post is accessible only to blog members. If you’re not among that elite corps, now is your chance. Join! It won’t cost much and every thin dime you pay goes to help those in need.
It’s not impossible that all his miracles (by which I mean perceived miracles) are later confabulations, but it seems unlikely to me.
Let me suggest that part of the reason Jesus ‘became God’ is that as the stories of his miracles grew larger and larger, it became more and more evident that faith alone could not literally move mountains, calm the seas, raise the dead. People who read what Jesus said, and what the gospels reported–that the disciples could do miracles too, that anyone could with enough faith–tried it themselves. The results were discouraging. To say the least.
So should they assume this means their faith is lacking? Isn’t it easier to just say “Jesus was something special, something a normal human being could never be”? Explanations for the failure of later Christians to achieve such heights were arrived at. The virgin birth is itself a dandy explanation–Jesus was born without sin. He is the begotten son of God. He was a divine being come to earth in human form. That explains why he can do these things and we can’t. Even though he would say the real explanation is to be found within ourselves.
His message was powerful, but it was also troubling. He’s telling us we can be more than we are, but sometimes, you know, we’d rather be less. It’s hard enough to live in this world without trying to be perfect. Which Jesus wasn’t, and well he knew it.
I think the views you ascribe to Jesus of the kingdom of heaven are rather shallow.
“no more physical ailments, no [physical] death, no natural disasters”
He said there would be some one eyed, one handed people living in the Kingdom. (matt 18:8-9)
But that eye would see very clearly indeed…. (Actually it says they *enter* it one-eyed. It doesn’t say they stay that way.)
indeed. . .
He also reportedly said there would always be poor people (he doesn’t say anything about whether there’ll be rich people). That saying relates to the story of his anointing with perfume by that woman, which is in all four gospels.
It is very unclear to us what Jesus thought the Kingdom would be like, and I would suggest it wasn’t always clear to him either, and his vision of it might be different at different times.
If it is fair to call Jesus a millennarian thinker, it is equally fair to call him a utopian thinker, and secular utopians tend to skirt over the fine details of their future paradises quite often themselves (not that they do any better when they get into the fine details, sometimes that’s worse).
Correction (sometimes I type before I think)–he says there’ll be rich people if a rope (or camel) can pass through the eye of a needle. Not impossible, with God. But pretty unlikely. It’s not your money that keeps you out. It’s what you did to get it, and what you didn’t do once you had it.
The Kingdom of Heaven is for good people. That’s the entrance requirement. You treated others as you would be treated, even those who treated you badly.
It’s hard to say whether he thought people in the Kingdom would be immortal and free of disease. If he believed faith could heal illness and injury, then maybe he believed people would go around healing each other, binding up each others’ wounds, feeding those who for whatever reason had nothing to eat, visiting those who were sick. Why would the Kingdom of God have people who needed this kind of help? Because life without anyone to be kind to would be a meaningless existence for the kind of people who would get into the Kingdom. For them, the only joy is service.
He might have reasoned it out like that. It’s like Valhalla, but for Boy Scouts (and Girl Scouts). Not Vikings. Every day there’s a reset, and you can help people all over again. It’s an idea.
Here’s another. The goats–the people who didn’t behave well–are in the outer darkness, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. They can never enter the Kingdom to molest the sheep, as they did before. But could the sheep, if they chose, go out into that darkness to minister to them? And isn’t that just what they’d want to do? Isn’t that precisely the kind of behavior that got them in? Because they’re, you know, suckers?
I can imagine Jesus torturing himself with precisely this type of question.
I’ve always thought the opening scene from the movie “Agora” is a good example of a not particularly miraculous event which later evolves and has a person asking “ are you the one who performed the miracle” later in the movie. Highly recommended to any who haven’t seen it (plus there’s great CGI of late antiquity Alexandria).
I discuss Hypatia in my book Triumph of Christianity, if you’re interested in the historical figure.
Thanks, yes I read triumph of Christianity. In the movie my favorite part is less about hypatia and more about the opening scene of Christians taunting pagans to walk across hot coals, which didn’t seem very hot but later people act like it was a miracle when the Christian did it. I imagine that’s how many of Jesus non miracles got embellished over time into miracles.
Probably the definitive source on Hypatia is Maria Dzielska’s book Hypatia of Alexandria. Just wondering if you consulted this book in writing Triumph of Christianity?
Yes indeed. It is the definitive study, and I took copious notes on it. A newer one by Michael Deakin is interesting, but not as thorough or authoritative.
That’s a great movie!
In response to individual on Twitter, she needs to learn her biblical geography. Mary lived in Nazareth and Elizabeth lived near Jerusalem, a great distance which took several days to travel. Mary did stay with Elizabeth for awhile. As too did Jesus know John the Baptist as a child, it was highly unlikely that they played together as children, again distance being relative.
Ancient magicians and prophets like Proteus Peregrinus, Alexander of Aboneuteichos and Apollonius of Tyana were thought to be able to perform wonders, so I find it unsurprising that Jesus would be thought to perform them as well.
(Different topic)
A frequent contributor* to this blog has claimed inerrancy of the NT on the basis of ” [divine] inspiration”. This raises questions in my mind:
* Do ANY of the NT books claim or even imply divine inspiration?
* When, historically, did the concept of inspiration/inerrancy develop or arise?
* What exactly does “inspiration” mean, and has its meaning changed over time? [sounds like an “inspiration” for a book 🙂 ]
* Three guesses; the first two don’t count!
1. No; 2. Starting in the second century Christians thought that books that later came to be included inthe NT were inspired by God, but the modern doctrine of inerrancy began to be formulated in the 19th century, in part in response to the rise of the claims of science; 3. It can mean many things, only one of which is represented by “inerrancy”
1. Yes. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…”
2. At least a moment before the above Scripture was written.
3. “All Scripture is God-breathed…” This is the only use in the Bible of the Greek word theopneustos, which means “God-breathed, inspired by God, due to the inspiration of God,” but other scriptural passages support the basic premise of Scripture being inspired by God.
The power of the breath of God in divine inspiration pervades Scripture. God breathed “the breath of life” into Adam (Genesis 2:7), and Jesus “breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’” (John 20:22). In 2 Peter 1:21 we are told that “prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Here we see the truths of Scripture described as coming directly from God, not from the will of the writers He used to record them.
Peter notes that Paul writes “with the wisdom that God gave him” and that failure to take heed to these messages is done at the peril of the readers (2 Peter 3:15–16). Scripture comes from the Holy Spirit, who gives it to us “in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words” (1 Corinthians 2:13). In fact, the Berean believers faithfully used the inspired Word of God to check Paul’s adherence to the Word as they “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11).
Now, don’t forget, “the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned” *
* Relying upon “Got Questions” for the above.
mannix, if you would be so kind, would you quote the exact phrase you refer to, the specific words, that the unnamed frequent contributor used regarding “inerrancy”? Thank you
You are quoting 2 Timothy 3:16; but the “scripture” that the writer is referring to is made clear in 2 Timothy 3:15: “from childhood you have known the sacred writings”. This probably refers to the Torah or other portions of the Old Testament, but it cannot refer to the New Testament because the New Testament did not exist during Timothy’s childhood. In fact some of the New Testament did not exist when 2 Timothy was written.
2 Peter 3:16 refers to wisdom, not inspiration.
July 31, 2018 post: “More on the Historical Problem of Miracles”
Near the end of the 5th of 6 postings (dated 1 August) the “unnamed contributor” wrote:
“The gospel as we know it…until proven otherwise…is accurate….How is that possible? I’ll tell you a little secret: it was inspired”.
I took the liberty of equating “accuracy” with “inerrancy”. If there is a significant difference, I will stand corrected.
Such ideas, too, fit with other established Eastern religions and generally metaphysics including Native American religion. We create our own earthquakes, our own storms, everything a mental construct. Because 3D space is an illusion created mentally in the mind, “plate tectonics” is where two or more separated energy forces meet. “Miracles” happen whenever the world becomes more “fluid”, the agreed upon rules of the world changing (changed rules are called “miracles because they weren’t ordinarily happening until they do). It would be here, I believe, a more fluid world as in a dream, when there would be an explosion of forms, as archeologists are so troubled about — new species appearing “instantly” over a 25,000 year span, there being no expected “transitional forms” but rather just completed species.
If Jesus had been the only one to do what are called “miracles,” then the apocalyptic explanation would work. But Peter and John and Paul and Stephen et al were also described as doing “miracles.” So that raises the possibility that such acts resulted from the power of Christian believing–and were not merely evolved to prove that Jesus was the Son of God.
If Jesus’ followers believed the coming of the Kingdom would be accompanied by miraculous signs, don’t you think Jesus believed it as well? And would have at least prayed for such miracles? In my medical practice I’ve seen 2 patients who were wheelchair-bound purely for psychological reasons; nothing physically wrong. I can see such a person being “healed” by the prayer of a powerful personality. An epileptic might believe Jesus exorcised his demon – until the next seizure occurred. So clarify for me – do you think Jesus believed in and attempted to perform miracles like healing and exorcism but those stories were later amplified and embellished, or do you think those stories were purely fabricated by later disciples for theological reasons?
Could be! But I don’t think we really know. The later sources say he did (and tried to do!) miracles, but I don’t think we can trust them in their stories. On the other hand, they’re the only sources we have. Moreover, it’s possible to think that others interpreted what he did as miracles without necessarily thinking that was his intention. Tough nut to crack.
Hi Dr. Ehrman
NORML has postulated Jesus used cannabis oil to cure seizures that might have been attributed to demons. Do you think that’s possible or is it just wishful thinking by some folks?
I think they’re dreamin’. Or hallucinatin’.
Or high
Yeah, kinda what I meant!
I think they’re dreamin’. Or hallucinatin’
Dr. Ehrman, have you ever taken a deep dive into the anthropological and sociological literature on “wonderworkers” throughout history and cultures? If not, I couldn’t recommend it more. It’s truly eye-opening. You’ll never see Jesus’s purported “miracles” in the same light ever again. Indeed, it makes it all the more clear that the historical Jesus was probably a charlatan — the 1st century Galilee equivalent of Joseph Smith. In fact, I would recommend making a project of it, possibly put it on your list of books you want to write.
Not a deep dive so much as a skimming of the surface….
Any books you would recommend on the topic?
No books, in particular, are coming to mind. I would probably need to do a search. In college I read a lot of articles from various social science journals about the habits and roles of wonder workers throughout many cultures, from Indian gurus to New Guinean shamans. But since I’m no longer in school, I no longer have access to journal aggregators like JSTOR. So…
EDIT: Now that I think about it, one book that I highly recommend is the famous Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, which somewhat discusses supposed miracle workers from history.
Joseph Smith got rich and had a lot of wives. He only got martyred because he didn’t have enough guns around him. (Though he had plenty.)
Jesus lived a life of abject poverty and (far as we know) chastity. He went to Jerusalem to confront the two most powerful sources of authority in his world, with a handful of ragged followers, and (possibly) two swords he doesn’t seem to have wanted to be used.
While our accounts of his ‘trial’ are suspect, it seems likely he could have gotten himself off the hook with Rome by renouncing his beliefs. Many later Christians did. He didn’t. He couldn’t.
It’s commonplace for some people to want to run him down, make him smaller, make him not exist at all.
But he’ll be around after all of us are dust, because whatever the actual facts behind his life are, there is a power to his story that inspires people.
And you can hate him for that all you like, but he’ll be remembered after all his many critics are dust. He’s already outlived around sixty generations of them.
Whatever…
Been away. Sorry I couldn’t respond.
But then, there’s nothing there to respond to, so no big. 🙂
Talmoore- I think if we are viewing Jesus only through the lense of him attempting miracles, then to decide he is a charlatan makes some sense. But there are also stories of things he said or did that if true, paints a picture of someone with some humility and wisdom. I struggle with knowing which of these is MORE true about who he really was. (I need to read Jesus before the Gospels!) I will say that I hope that there is at least some truth to the latter.
I do NOT have a hard time believing that even with the best of intentions his own followers or those that came later, knowingly made up these miracle stories to convince people in the divinity of Jesus. I don’t think of them as charlatans in that case… just desperate to convince others.
Professor Ehrman, may I ask why you believe that the disciples actually believed they saw the risen body of Jesus? What leads you to think they believed it rather than made it up? (Again, if they made it up, I don’t believe we must jump to the conclusion that they were just “charlatans”. Perhaps they did truly believe he was divine, but were desperate to give his death some meaning through this story.)
Thanks.
Amy, there’s an exceedingly high probability that Jesus was a typical fraud, like most cult leaders. Any reasons for anyone to think otherwise are just wishful thinking.
The only facts that we have here are that John the Baptist was imprisoned, that Jesus was a faith healer, that Jesus was executed for sedition (that charge was nailed to the top of the cross), and that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet. Faith healers are dime a dozen now and were so in Jesus’ time. Once you start pretending that Jesus had healed the sick, the blind and the lame, it’s an easy stretch to include the more spectacular ones (curing blindness, raising the dead). What is significant is that none of the NT miracles involve regenerating a missing arm, leg or eye. Which is damning evidence that all these miracles attributed to Jesus are fake, just as they are for today’s faith healers.
I wouldn’t say fake. Fake implies people were being conned. Jesus isn’t Elmer Gantry. But he may have been Sharon Falconer (Jean Simmons’ character in the movie, but I actually read the novel, so there.)
Sinclair Lewis did extensive research for that novel, probably the book of his that has held up best over time. He was particularly fascinated by Aimee Semple McPherson, who ran a traveling ministry, tent revivals. Guess what she did there?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_healing_ministry_of_Aimee_Semple_McPherson
The 20th Century. The Jazz Age, in fact.
And we should doubt Jesus could do the same thing–or more–in an age when people believed much more in the supernatural–all people, not just Jews–and there was basically no popular entertainment, no radio, no newspapers, no professional skeptics, and no doubt at all that demonic possession was a real thing?
What did he have to do? Someone is in enormous mental turmoil, physical pain, someone most people shun or ignore. He talks gently to the man, or woman. He shows concern. He acts as if they matter. He doesn’t run from them, show fear. He tells them their sins are forgiven, their demons are cast out. What are the odds he never helped anyone that way? If he could inspire all these men and women to follow him, put aside their livelihoods for him, take such risks for him, imagine the charisma he had. And charisma is precisely what a faith healer uses–along with conviction. Or faith.
If he helped even a few, then as Bart himself must admit–stories grow with the telling. A small kernel of truth under all the myths.
Is that a miracle in the religious sense of the word? No.
Is it fake? HELL no.
Praise Jesus.
I say that without irony.
godspell,
I think you are getting lost in the ether.
Its proven that mindfulness can help with recovery, pain control, and overall health…meditation/yoga and prayer can increase mindfulness as well.
As far as faith healing goes, it does affect a person’s state of mind and can have a measurable impact on the body since the mind (i.e. nervous system) control’s bodily function.
You shouldn’t dismiss it because its done in a religious context versus in a clinical setting.
These practices served ancient people who were without the modern advances in medicine you are able to enjoy. Many times the medicine men also doubled as the priest, and in a lot of Tribes existing today this is still the case.
Also, a minister or priest would still advise you to go see a doctor.
Godspell- To “help even a few” while deluding billions of others might be worthy of something but it certainly isn’t praise imo. That is to say even a word of it was ever based in reality to begin with. The “kernel” or inspiration could’ve just as realistically been a prince named Buddha rather than a guy named Jesus. I think to imply reality to these stories is going beyond our abilities to decipher probability. It’s one thing to discuss the content but another to imply a factual context. Implying said context is to start a debate and out of respect for our host we should avoid insinuating conclusive claims one way or the other. As Dr Ehrman has qualified thousands of times over “we can’t know”.
At the risk of stating the obvious- there’s far more to critical analysis than weighing the content within a claim itself. In this case.. logic, philosophy, psychology, epistemology, well attested history, biological evolution, and most importantly, the LAWS OF PHYSICS- all must be applied to attain a realistic probability when concerning hearsay with no available character witness.
Most of those necessary requirements must be neglected in order to realistically entertain unfalsifiable claims- especially those that have relied on circular reasoning and the largest appeal-to-emotion ever compiled to survive. Don’t drink the koolaid prior to considering the power of cognitive bias. Talmoore was right about the wish thinking. Be careful, it’s a slippery slope.
Man, everybody was responding to me while I wasn’t here!
Explain to me how Jesus was ‘deceiving billions’ in a century when there were far fewer than one billion people on earth.
All influential ideas and systems of thought–without exception–have been used badly by some, and the more influential they are, the more that holds true.
Power corrupts, but unless you believe Jesus really was God, he never had any power at all.
And he wasn’t deceiving anyone if he believed what he was saying.
Bart, is your skepticism that any of Jesus’ reputed miracles took place in his lifetime in any way related to the fact that we have no equivalent stories about his teacher, John the Baptist?
John certainly developed a powerful reputation in his lifetime, was believed by some to be a reincarnated prophet or perhaps even the Messiah (in spite of his martyrdom at the hands of Herod), and all we know about him (mainly from Christian writers) is that he had an ascetic lifestyle, preached in what we’d now call a hellfire & brimstone style, and performed baptisms.
For a period of time, his cult probably had more of a reputation (at least among Jews) than that of Jesus, and much of what the gospels say about him seems to be aimed at convincing people that yes, John was great, but Jesus was greater (even though Jesus reportedly said otherwise), and John had acknowledged this before his death.
It is mentioned (I forget which gospel) that John performed no such marvels as Jesus. But what else would you expect?
Isn’t it possible that the reason Jesus broke from John is that they disagreed on how to reach out to people to spread the message of the Kingdom? And that part of this dissension between them was around Jesus’ purported faith healings/exorcisms? There is some reference to this in Matthew. If you read between the lines, you can see a teacher questioning his pupil about what he’s doing with what he was taught.
John seems to have waited for people to come to him. Jesus, by contrast, went out and confronted people. A much more peripatetic preacher, who talked to people John probably would never have bothered with.
I continue to think Jesus believed he could perform miracles through faith, and that anyone else with faith could do the same. Otherwise, I can’t make sense of the story being told. And we must believe there is some sense to it, or what’s the point of all this?
Actually, I hadn’t thought about John not doing any miracles…. But no, there’s nothing inthe texts to suggest animosity between the two, or a split based on Jesus ability to do miracles.
What about when John sends a message to Jesus from prison? I don’t see any reason to assume that incident is made of whole cloth. John is specifically inquiring about the reason for Jesus to be performing ‘signs’–meaning miracles.
I don’t believe we can know exactly what John said, or how he said it, or how Jesus responded. But that sounds to me like an attempt to explain some dissension between them. And Jesus saying no one is greater than John the Baptist isn’t something Christians would be making up themselves by the time of Matthew’s gospel, is it now? It could be him trying to heal a breach with a revered teacher who is not long for this world.
I”ve never read John’s questoin as at all antagonistic.
Neither do I, but we have no reason to assume that is the precise wording of John’s question–not likely he sent Jesus a letter (could he write?)
If this is based on something Matthew has heard about, we can depend on him to parse it in such a way as to make Jesus come off better than John. He’s in control of the situation, John only has questions, Jesus has answers.
But I question whether he’d tell this story at all–and conclude it with Jesus saying, in effect, that even he was not greater than John (since he was born of a woman), and only those in the Kingdom of Heaven are greater, which is kind of confusing, since wouldn’t they all be born of women too? Is this Jesus’ way of saying “You showed me the path, you have no superior in this world, but everything will be different once the Kingdom comes”?
It’s a baffling story, and I don’t see how it forwards Matthew’s point, even though I can see him trying to make it do that.
Clearly there was dissension between the followers of Jesus and John, or there wouldn’t be so much about John. But also, Jesus must have discouraged any attacks on John, who he went on respecting.
The most likely source of dissension (which is not the same thing as antagonism) that I can arrive at is that even though they believed many of the same things, they acted differently upon those beliefs. One crucial difference might be that Jesus, rather that performing baptisms, performed exorcisms and faith healings. It could also be that John didn’t like some of the people Jesus was associating with.
We don’t know for a fact they knew each other that well, or that long. It seems reasonable to assume John was more to Jesus than somebody who dunked him in a river and then Jesus had a vision. Was it a close relationship? If so, Jesus going off and recruiting his own disciples might have been distressing to John.
The main thing that seems to interest John, in that story, is that Jesus is performing miracles. Obviously they are in agreement about most other things. Why would John question Jesus at all, unless Jesus was doing something he, John, didn’t do?
I think it’s just another story that Christian story tellers came up with to emphasize that Jesus was the “One to come,” as John the Baptist was informed in no uncertain terms.
If that was the intent of the story, then why didn’t they indicate that John received Jesus’ message and agreed with it? If they’re making up the question, and the answer, they can also say John was satisfied by the answer, and they don’t.
Matthew’s John has already acknowledged Jesus as his master by saying Jesus should baptize him. Why is he asking questions at all?
John’s question doesn’t make sense in the context of the story being told. And I’ve read enough of your work to know you usually take great interest in that kind of textual conflict.
I think we have to see much of the material about John as resulting from dissension between followers of John and Jesus after both their deaths, which happened fairly close together. So this could be Matthew trying to explain a story John’s followers were telling, about how John questioned or even upbraided his former follower. We’ll never have their side of the story, so it’s hard to say much more.
Anyway, you’ve moved on to other subjects, and I’ll let this go, but I’m not at all convinced, and remain puzzled as to your reasoning on this matter. I have to go with the majority of scholars (of which I am not one) in believing Jesus had some reputation as a worker of wonders in his own lifetime.
Professor,
Ok, so if Jesus miracles were related 30-60 years after the crucifixion by gospel authors to prove Jesus apocalyptic teachings were true, and Paul also was an apocalyptic (I think that is pretty accepted?), why didn’t Paul mention them 20 (or so) years post crucifixion? Paul may certainly have been more interested in conveying his message about faith in the risen Christ, but, would not the key to that message, that Jesus rose and was (in some way) God, warrant the same proving found necessary by the Gospel authors? Particularly if the miracles were included in the stories of Jesus circulating at that the time Paul had his vision of Jesus? In short, notwithstanding Paul apparently knowing little about Jesus, is not his silence about the miracles evidence they were not well known in Paul’s time which went back to a few years after the crucifixion until say 50ish CE?
My guess is that Paul was simply talking about other things. I’ve never hear my mother talk about Jesus’ miracles over the past 20 years either!
Is your mother founding churches and evangelizing to people who have never heard the gospel?
I don’t mean to sound snarky but the situations are completely different! If Jesus’ miracles were established by the time of Paul, I just think he would have made at least one mention, side remark, even a hint that Jesus did miracles. Especially since miracles become so central later.
No, I’m afraid her memory is shot now. But yes, she did work on the mission field for a time, and was always interested in converting people. In any event, I’m not saying that Paul did not tell miracle stories when trying to convert people. About that we simply don’t know. He never says. But I’m talking about when he wrote his letters. He did’nt talk about Jesus’ miracles because he was simply addressing other issues.
I’ve long wanted to send her a letter in appreciation for what you have meant to me and so many others and planned to give it to you to forward in October (Israel). I hope it’s not too late.
Ah feel free to. Nothing she likes better than getting a piece of mail! Her memory is bad, but she is a fully functioning person who can experience happiness (and can remember some things — especially the distant past)
Excellent post! This was the question I’ve been wondering about, if the claims of Miracles originated in the life of Jesus or evolved later. It seems that many historical legends often have a grain of truth to them so it I’ve wondered if there was some historical reason, or real life event, around the miraculous stories. Of course the supernatural lies beyond the scope of the historical methodology. So it is unknowable.
You say that the first miracles of Jesus demonstrated that the Kingdom of God was imminent or among them, and that in the book of John miraculous signs were proof of his divinity. Would it be accurate to say that as the theology and beliefs about Jesus evolved in the early Christian community that the reasons and motives for telling these stories also changed or were they always told to prove his divinity?
Yes indeed!
If, as I have read, elements of the long ending of Mark appear to be mentioned by the the Church Fathers e.g. Irenaeus in the second century, why is it judged to be a late addition because it is missing from Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus which are from the fourth century?
They never refer to the passage itself, and even if they say some things that sound kind of like the passage, that just means that such things were being said — and that a later scribe wrote them down to make his ending. The evidence for the ending being secondary is so overwhelming (including stylistic differences from the rest of the Gospel, a different vocabulary, an impossible transition to it, not to mention the ms evidence) that there really is almost no debate about the matter among biblicla scholars.
Dr. Ehrman thank you for your blog and sharing your knowledge. Would you describe Jesus as a religious cult leader? Do you believe there sufficient historical information about Jesus to ascertain his psychological profile?
I wouldn’t say that his followers made up a “cult” in the modern sense. And no, I’m afraid it’s impossible to do a convincing psychological profile. That’s hard enough for a psychiatrist who can interveiw a person!
If a prophet, Messiah-claimant was not performing healings and other “miracles” would that be odd? Was it something that was expected from a religious holy man?
THere were lots of holy men and alledged miracle workers who were not thought to be the messiah, and most messiah figures were not thought to do miracles. they were more often political/military leadres.
Bart, I apologize for bombarding you with posts–let me ask one simple question.
Why are there stories in the gospels where Jesus tries to perform miracles and is unable to do so?
I’m reading Jesus Before the Gospels now, and that sounds like a ‘gist’ memory to me. It also passes the Doctrine of Embarassment quite handily.
Also, we see that this memory is quite strong in Mark, watered down a bit in Matthew, basically absent from Luke, and of course as far as John is concerned, Jesus could do anything he wanted, even if nobody believed in him.
But I do note throughout the gospels Jesus berating people for not having faith in him. Which sounds like something a man who believed he could do miracles from faith, but then found himself unable to perform on command, would do. “I can’t deal with all these negative vibes, man.”
I think at bare minimum, Jesus did exorcisms. And there is every reason to think someone as charismatic as him could persuade people with imaginary demons inside them that they weren’t there anymore (at least for a while, and were the disciples coming back later with questionnaires?)
I get all your points in the book, and it’s beautifully presented. I also get that it’s important to rigorously test our assumptions about what in the gospels is based on real events.
But the idea that he could work miracles is too ingrained in the narrative to be a later addition. And you have to admit, it’s pretty weird for people who have come to believe he was the Messiah, the begotten Son of God, resurrected from the dead, and (eventually) God Incarnate–would think he suffered from performance anxiety, or needed a receptive audience to do anything. So to me, it seems overwhelmingly likely he did attempt miracles.
(And I once saw the Jazz cornetist Olu Dara change the weather in Central Park. It happened!)
I argue in Jesus Before the Gospels that these doubt stories arose because in fact some of jesus’ own followers never did come to believe in him, and so these doubts were retroverted back to his ministry.
I haven’t gotten to that part yet. I will soon.
But I’m skeptical that’s enough of an answer.
Jesus was already considered a divine being by that time. In the Mark gospel, it makes sense, because he’s just a messenger, and the message is that all things are possible through faith–to anyone. It fits the Mark gospel very well.
But in the later accounts, Jesus is himself the source of power. It wouldn’t matter if the people around him believed or not. He would have absolute faith, and he is the Son of God. The bad vibes wouldn’t get through.
If it wasn’t known he’d tried and failed to perform miracles in his hometown, why bring it up? We believe that story, because it rings true. He would not be able to convince people who had known him as a boy, who knew his family. Even his family would doubt him. You don’t put something like that into the story if you don’t have to. If we doubt that story, what can we ever believe?
This sticks out. This is different from all the later accounts of Jesus’ miracles, and from other accounts of wonder workers. Sometimes Jesus could not work miracles. Sometimes his power, however you explain it, abandoned him.
At a later time, his major miracles were seen as proof of his being Messiah and Son of God. But his original miracles were just proof of his faith.
I finished Jesus Before the Gospels, and found it enthralling. But I did not find the passage that explains the doubt stories. Not even in the footnotes.
I’m leaving on a trip, and won’t have internet access very often.
I would observe that there’s a difference between saying some of Jesus’ followers doubted him (which I’d assume was sometimes the case) and saying that he couldn’t do miracles when surrounded by doubters. Jesus is constantly surrounded by doubters when he does most of his miracles. And he silences their doubts by performing miracles.
So why would Mark say Jesus couldn’t do miracles in Nazareth? Why would there be any tradition that Jesus ever failed to do a miracle he attempted?
I’m arguing that this is because there was a living memory that sometimes he attempted miracles and even those who believed in him saw no sign that he’d succeeded. Sometimes the person he tried to help didn’t respond as hoped. Probably often, but he would have some successes most places he went. In Nazareth, his confidence would be greatly impacted. These were people who knew him as a child, and he can’t speak to them with the same authority he has elsewhere.
It would be one thing if they said “He went there and they didn’t see what the big deal was.” But to say he couldn’t perform miracles (when in fact the John gospel has him performing his first miracle near home, and nobody even knows he’s doing it except Mary), and he was performing miracles as a boy–well, we know that didn’t happen.
But there’s no reason for his failure to be mentioned. Except Mark knows that it’s widely understood among Christians that Jesus tried and failed to do miracles in Nazareth.
In Mark, the miracles are about faith. And somehow, Jesus’ own faith–and therefore his power–was negated by his birthplace (which is surely what Mark thought Nazareth was). He needs an explanation, and that explanation is that nobody there believed in him. But if it hadn’t happened, he’d need no explanation at all. He’d just say they failed to see he was Messiah. Like everybody else. His native soil betrays him.l
(Hey, you don’t suppose that’s where the idea of Kryptonite came from?)
…these doubt stories arose because in fact some of jesus’ own followers never did come to believe in him…
???? Wow! Interesting…. Ok, ordering the book now!
I think that if miracles were attached to Jesus from the earliest times then somewhere in Paul’s thousands of words Paul would have made at least ONE mention of them.
Question: Do any of the other epistles written before or near the Gospels mention any miracles? Or is Mark the first?
Paul is our only author certainly writing before the Gospels, and he does not mention any miracles.
Other than the resurrection–and Jesus speaking to him from beyond the grave.
It could be argued that Paul thought the other miracles were small potatoes next to that–all the more if by the time Paul was writing, the more spectacular miracles were not yet part of the established canon of stories, which seems possible.
Paul might also have been painfully aware that there were many conflicts in the stories he did hear, and again, I think he was reluctant to commit himself to anything. There were probably arguments as to which stories were true. If he takes one side over another, he’s weakening his influence with the people whose side he didn’t take.
I think we agree Paul was extremely smart and politically savvy. He can see the ground shifting daily, chasms opening up, and he doesn’t want to end up on the wrong side. So he’s going to be very careful about what he writes in those letters.
He did have an unguarded moment, where he talked about how 500 people saw Jesus resurrected. That story didn’t end up making the cut. Maybe he figured out later that it wasn’t that many (Jesus had 500 followers? Or were these just random passersby?), and it just confirmed him in his caution. He rarely sticks his neck out, and only when it’s something he’s passionate about, like not forcing gentile converts to follow the Jewish laws. That’s important because that’s his territory. Without gentiles to convert, he’s got nothing. And he’s not converting many if they have to get circumcised as adults, is he now?
Paul regularly mentions people with the Holy Spirit performing miracles, including himself, and so it would be safe to assume that if Paul thought these “lesser” people were working wonders, then he also believed Jesus had performed equal, if not more awesome wonders. Think about it this way. Every time Paul talks about “power” or the “spirit” or whatnot, understand that he’s including the ability to work wonders in with those terms.
How much information do we have on what the writers of the old testament thought “life” in she is like? Ps. 88:11 (RCL) asks, “Will your wonders be known in the dark?/or your righteousness in the country where all is forgotten?” Is that a typical image?
Yup, pretty typical. Sheol is often identified simply as the “grave” or the “pit.” For many Israelites, there wasn’t life after death, just death after death. It’s one of the main points of my book (that I’m now writing)
In the Greek experience, victors of a battle got to tell how Zeus the savior favored their side. We see a bit of that in Xenophon.
Let us though suppose that there was some truth to the Jesus’ faith healing accomplishments; which stories were then embellished. Indeed people like to tell or hear awe inspiring stories. Besides fact finding is not a naturally occurring human talent.
Still the problem with the problem is that there is no bedrock brute-fact here. Moreover on the long view, we struggle to explain how a spiritual and social movement came out of nowhere led by some very ordinary looking men and women and their crowds.
Dear Godspell
In Luke 7:11-16 the dead man had 0 faith. “…when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not. And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak.”
The Greek phraseology is ouk edunato. This expression is an idiomatic manner of speaking occasionally employed in the New Testament to connote the idea that one, for some reason, chooses not to do something — though technically, he has the ability to do it. Consider these examples.
In one of his parables, Jesus tells of a man who received an invitation to a great supper. For reasons of his own (though quite unjustified), he declined, saying, “I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot [ou dunamai] come” (Luke 14:20). Having a wife scarcely creates an impossibility!
“Whosoever is begotten of God does not sin, because his [God’s] seed abides in him: and he cannot [ou dunamai] sin, because he is begotten of God” (1 John 3:9).
The apostle is not suggesting that it is impossible for the child of God to sin (cf. 1 John 1:8-9; 2:1-2); rather, he is stating that when divine truth becomes resident in the heart, one will choose not to yield ourselves to a habitual, unrestrained life of sin. The term “cannot” is used in the sense of a moral imperative. Wayne Jackson Christian Courier
Even His killers acknowledged the Dude performed miracles. “But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. Then the chief priests and Pharisees convened the Sanhedrin and said, “What are we to do? This man is performing many signs. If we let Him go on like this, everyone will believe in Him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
That’s a good one. These cats wanted nothing more than to be rid of the Romans. When it comes to lying to ourselves, man excels like no other creature. From Jerry 17: “The heart is more deceitful than all else, And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?”
Ever see someone Judge Judy ruled against tell the audience, “I have to agree with the judge. I was wrong!” Never. Not once
ouk edunato definitely does not mean “could do it but chose not to.” It means “was not able to” Notice that the person you’re quoting says that it can *connote* the former. His wording matters.
“John the Baptist, who is now in prison, has heard about “the deeds of Christ,” and sends some of his disciples to him to ask if he is the one to come at the end of time, or if there is someone else.” Bart
That is not true. They do not ask about the end of time.
“Are you the one who is come, or should we look for another?” Matt
“Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” Luke
{BTW, how could Big John have heard about His deeds assuming he meant the miraculous deeds? Christ was still alive. I know. Just incorrect memories.}
Jesus replies: “Go and report to John the things you hear and see (sounds as though Jesus performed miracles right before their eyes!): the blind come to see and the lame walk; lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised… and blessed is the one who takes no offense at me.”
Jesus’ miracles demonstrate it. Or as he says later in Matthew, “If it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you” Bart
Look closer. His answer is that the Kingdom is already upon you, not something that would occur soon and this contradicts the first part of your argument as well. If it was already present, it wasn’t going to arrive in the near future.
Jesus became increasingly powerful with the passing of time. Was he really the miracle-working Son of God during his lifetime? That is not a question that historians can deal with directly. But it is not at all implausible that the miracle working deeds of Jesus were later memories told by those who had come to believe that he had been raised from the dead and exalted to heaven. His current powers as Lord of all, according to these memories, were present already during his life as demonstrations that the end was near. B
Not true.
John was a rock star. If stories about him circulated that were untrue, there were many who likely would have put an end to them. John’s pals probably told others what had happened. Plus, they had no reason to twist and to add complications to the events they wished to use to proselytize.
Love this: The Lamb of God
I suspect (which is to say ‘cannot support’) Biblical scholars have fixated on their own experience for conveying ‘knowledge’ or accurate reports; namely writings. Even Gig-billions of scraps of paper, all indexed and easily retrieved to sight and mind.
The ancients had another vehicle that we hear when we read Homer or other ancient poet. Ancient poets used song to facilitate replication of the poems that would became writings to us. We see that sort of thing with some ancient philosophers: they authored not text to be read in silence but verse which rhymed and was more easily remembered by singing their tune.
So I imagine the Sermon on the Mount was taught and learned as a song. And the rest of the gospel? Who knows? But song it seems would be a useful way to promote a robust (not necessarily accurate) gist memory. And that touches on another point: Jesus’ role as a teacher. I suspect the ancient word for ‘teacher’ meant a master of a craft who supervised a number of apprentices, and who taught them the mysteries of the trade. The master worked alongside his apprentices. Did Jesus do something like that for three years? Who knows?
?But if Jesus did use song to teach some evangelical words, we can easily imagine that songs of miracles were sung in his lifetime. And like Homer’s songs, different parts of the story were swapped in or out to fit the format of the religious festival. The Iliad or Odyssey apparently takes about 24 hours to recite from one end to the other. But I have never had that experience. Still there was a time when some old blind man with a beautiful voice would sit on a stage and sing a song of Odysseus’ victory at an athletic contest and a warning to him to not fall into temptation; see Book VIII. Or about an hour of speaking from what was memorized by heart. But who knows?
“This is the final, and most important, of my posts on the miracles of Jesus. In it I raise the question – without being able to come to an absolutely definitive answer – of whether Jesus was thought to be a miracle worker already in his life time or if, instead, miracles came to be ascribed to him only later by followers who believed he had been raised from the dead. I incline toward the latter view.”
Christians will hand wave away your argument as being based on a bias: You don’t believe in miracles therefore you doubt that the miracle stories existed in Jesus’ lifetime. I was disappointed by this post, I thought you were going to present actual evidence, not just personal opinion.
So, Christians will continue to use Josephus’ alleged statement that Jesus had a reputation as a healer and a miracle worker to support the historicity of the miracle stories in the Gospels, and we skeptics will continue to doubt their historicity because we do not believe in the supernatural.
Stalemate.
I don’t think I understand the logic. Why would my view that miracles don’t happen have any bearing on whether I think there were stories of Jesus’ miracles in his lifetime? I certainly believe there are stories of miracles in the modern world (e.g., about Oral Roberts on up to modern faith healers) that are circulated and believed while the person said to do them is still living. My personal belief about miracles has nothing to do with whether stories are told at the time.
Humans make stuff up as clearly revealed in our daily politics. Hence, I think it Is probably more likely (not 100% certain) that people made up the miracles recorded in the Gospels than that these miracles actually occurred. This is just the way humans happen to do stuff. Moreover, it is really hard to tell about stuff happening yesterday much less stuff happening 2,000 years ago before the age of tv recordings, etc.
It’s hard for me to imagine that Jesus could have garnered the following he did in his lifetime without being seen as performing “miraculous” healings and exorcisms. The more spectacular miracles like calming the sea, walking on water, etc. were obviously later addenda to the legends of his deeds, but I think there must be a kernel of truth behind him at least being perceived as a healer/exorcist in his lifetime. Other contemporaneous apocalyptic preachers/messiahs attracted followers by proclaiming a new world order soon to be established and an overthrow of the present evil forces (the Romans), but it seems that Jesus’ preaching of the coming Kingdom of God was always more subtle and couched in parables. If he thought of himself as the (or a) Messiah, our uncertainty about this today I think at least demonstrates that he never voiced this belief beyond the small circle of his disciples (until Judas apparently spilled the beans). I guess my point behind all this is that I have trouble seeing him attracting a large following through his teachings and parables alone. To garner the popularity he did, wouldn’t he have needed to be seen as actively “doing” something of material benefit to people?
I”m not sure just *how* “popular” he was. Later Christians claim he had hundreds, thousands of followers. But I very much doubt it.
Mr. Ehrman. I want to direct the attention to some of the important but obscure characters in the New Testament – Lazarus and his sisters.
We know from the Book of Job that Job had two wives. When his first wife(Sitis) died God replaced her with a new one(Dinah). My goal is to show that Lazarus, Martha and Maria are nothing more than a kind of midrash on Job and his two wives.
As we read from the apocryphal ‘Testament of Job’, we understand that Job’s first wife(Sitis) labored much to support herself and Job, who was only sitting upon the dung-hill outside of the city. Job’s first wife was a sort of Martha compared to his other wife. She even cut off her hair to receive bread so that she and Job could live on for three more days. And crying aloud and weeping she came to Job and told him that she sold her hair for bread.
We find this tradition in the anointing of Jesus. While gJohn has Jesus anointed where Lazarus lived, the Synoptic Gospels has it in the home of Simon the Leper – which should be the same person. Job was a Leper at that time.
Testament of Job Ch. 6 13: “Behold her who had the basin wherewith to wash her feet made of gold and silver, and now she walks upon the ground and sells her hair for bread!”
One can argue that it was Job she anointed with her hair, and not Jesus. But we must understand that Job was seen as a type of Jesus among the early church fathers.
Why was Lazarus dead for four days? This will only be speculation, but Job had four friends whom he argued with. Maybe these four friends signified four days for the insider?
I’m not sure where you’re getting the information about Job’s wives.
Mr. Ehrman. The information about Job’s wives comes mainly from the apocryphal scripture: ‘The Testament Of Job’, but comments about Job are found throughout rabbinic literature, which you obviously know much better than I do. But it was a theologically problem for the ancient reader that Job apparently appeared in two different wrappings. The Job of chs. 1 and 42 is righteus and God-fearing, a model of piety. The Job of the rest of the book is defiant, even blasphemous. It is not surprising that it was more often the pious Job of the prologue and epilogue who caught the imagination.
This dilemma between a pious Job and a blasphemous Job can be an explanation to the theological idea of a dead Lazarus – because Job, in The Book of Job, did not die! At least not a physical death.
The theological question could be: did the spiritual Job die when Satan got Job in his possession? Was Job’s behavior then affected by God’s abandonment? Could someone come up with this idea? I do not find it unlikely. Theological exegesis is often a strange exercise.
If we read Lazarus into this context, we might also get a better understanding of the theological meaning.
Now back to Job’s first wife.
First, read how ‘The Testament of Job’ describes her, then read
Ephraim’s Homily on the Sinful Woman – http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3708.htm
It’s not at all that far fetched to see Job’s first wife as a reasonable candidate for the woman who anointed Jesus to his death – The Sinful Woman.
Mr. Ehrman. Was Lazarus really dead, or just “dead”? We see this ambiguity in gJohn: “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.” “I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe.” “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.”(…)”“by this time there was a bad odor from Lazarus.”
It is usually though that the point of him being dead for four days (and for Jesus not going immediately to him) was to show that he really was dead. As Dickens would say, Dead as a door nail…..
Mr. Ehrman. You have recently written a few posts regarding Thomas the apostle, which I would like to comment on here, if you allow me. Because there seems to be a connection between Lazarus and Thomas – Thomas would die with Lazarus.
An assumption may be to assume that Lazarus and Thomas were the same person, only from two different traditions. This may seem odd at first, but if we begin to study it deeper, it makes sense.
Job could not find meaning in his suffering, and he cursed the day he was born. Job doubted the Lord (not Jesus) through 40 chapters of his book. Then the Lord answers out of a storm: Where were you when I founded the earth? etc. And Job answers: I was so small, what could I answer you?
Jesus was not present when Lazarus died – Thomas was not present when Jesus had arisen. According to ‘The Testament of Job’, the sufferings of Job lasted 7 years. Which means he was saved the eighth year(not the eighth day). And Job put his finger into his own body to prevent a worm from escaping.
If we now read the gospel of Thomas in light of this, then it makes sense. To use your words: This world we live in is inferior at best, and is more appropriately thought of as a cesspool of suffering, “a corpse.” A person’s inner being (the “light” within) has tragically fallen into this material world, where it has become entrapped in a body (sunk into “poverty”), and in that condition it has become forgetful of its origin (or “drunk”). It needs to be reawakened by learning the truth about this material world and the impoverished material body that it inhabits.
Dr Ehrman,
is it true that (despite your contrary opinion, whom I respect), there is general agreement among scholars that even if his miraculous actions were no doubt amplified in the tradition, Jesus was seen in his life time by his followers like a faith healer of some sort and probably an exorcist?
Thank you,
Michele Fornelli
Yes, that’s the widely held view. I’m not so sure myself.
Dr Ehrman – With the backdrop being that I’m entirely persuaded by your view that Jesus was primarily and best seen as an apocalyptic prophet: to clarify your point above in my mind, it isn’t that miracle worker (or healer or exorcist) is mutually exclusive with apocalypticist, but rather that you’re unconvinced that traditions of healings/miracles/exorcisms go back to the historical Jesus? Or do I have that wrong? Thanks!
That’s right.
Perfect, thank you
I was a Mormon. I did all the Mormon things with a good heart and to the best of my ability, with genuineness. I even went on a mission and taught the people of Argentina for two whole years of my life, preaching a restoration of the gospel of Jesus (through “Joe Smith” and his “gold bible”). I’ve since left Christianity altogether but I had some experiences that pertain to this topic. While on my mission I was supposedly heavily endowed with power and authority and I went about preaching and blessing the sick and helping the needy. I, on many occasions, blessed certain individuals to be healed of their illnesses and afflictions. Many, many times these individuals claimed to be healed through my blessings and thanked me. A man even once told me that I (we, my companion and I; you know how they walk in two’s) healed his legs and he could walk again. Family members told me that I healed the cancerous tumor of their child, etc. Despite the fact that these individuals and their families believed I miraculously healed them, I never saw anything miraculous. I never had any evidence that indicated a miracle occurred. I don’t think anything miraculous occurred.
Although Dr. Ehrman’s view is persuasive, like he has said I think it’s also possible that people believed Jesus to be a healer/miracle worker in his own life. Does this mean he actually did miracles? No. Just like my case, I don’t think I performed any miracles even though the people thought I did. Does this mean Jesus was a con-artist? No. Just like I wasn’t a con-artist; I actually believed I could help people through the gift and power of god, and the people thought they were being helped by the power of god. Perhaps Jesus simply was “about [his] father’s business” and people thought he actually performed miracles. I almost guarantee someone in Argentina has told a story about how I healed someone. But I didn’t.
Interesting. Thanks,
Was there ever a consistent pattern of who could/could not perform miracles in Judaism (such as in the Old Testament)? Could only prophets perform miracles or could anyone who wanted to demonstrate the power of Yahweh?
I don’t think wanting to be able to do a miracle was the key. It was always the person God himself chose to empower.
Dr Ehrman,
The fact that Jesus and his followers were apocalyptic therefore does not rule out the possibility that his disciples could see him as a healer and an exorcist, right
Thank you
Right.
In other words, the concept of apocalyptic does not exclude that of a miracle worker, am I right?
Thank you very much!
Actually, miracle workers could be apocalypticists (and vice versa, obviously)
Dr Ehrman,
do you see any analogies between Jesus and the myth of Chiron? Or is it just sensationalism from internet?
Thank you very much
Michele Fornelli
The centaur? Well, most people think Jesus looked more human…. THe fact that he was an intelligent kind being doesn’t seem to get us too far by way of “influence.” And as to unusual births, welll, that was a widespread theme in antiquity.
Dr Ehrman
“The fact that he was an intelligent kind being doesn’t seem to get us too far by way of ‘influence.’ ”
Do you mean that the figure of Jesus could be affected by this influence?
Thank you
Sorry, I was being a bit subtle. I’m saying that the fact that this mythical centaur was, unlike other centaurs, said to be “intelligent” is no basis to say that the stories about Jesus were modelled on him (as if saying that the idea Jesus was intelligent must be based on the stories about an intelligent centaur!).