Loading...If we are talking about the earliest Christian writings — the subject of my previous three posts — we naturally want to know when decisions were made about WHEN church father settled on our 27-book canon of the New Testament. Many people — including tons of scholars — set a precise date: 367 CE, in the decision written by the famous theologian Athanasius of Alexandria.
Is that right?
My first academic publication addressed this question and answered: NO. Here’s how I have talked about the issue and my attempt to overturn the widely held view, from long ago!
******************************
My first semester in the PhD program at Princeton Theological Seminary I had a seminar on the “Canon of the New Testament” with Bruce Metzger. This was a class that focused on the questions surrounding how we ended up with the twenty-seven books in the New Testament. Who decided that it would be these twenty-seven books, and no others? What was motivating these people? What were the grounds for their decisions? And when did they make them?
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Bart,
It seems that it was unlikely that ALL the canonical candidate manuscripts would have been conveniently available at any one place and time before the third century. At least Didymus could hear all of the works! Outside of the famous Library of Alexandria, is there any information that might indicate where these manuscripts might have been stored within the major Christian centers? I expect that these manuscripts were treated with much care and respect. For some strange/optimistic reason, I am envisioning a type of ‘ark of the covenant’ portable library used to store and protect these extremely valuable regional-owned manuscripts. This at least gives me hope that some archeological find of a regional ‘ark’ could still occur in this century.
My cynical view is that the bishops securely hoarded these works and that they were not interested in passing these manuscripts to anyone other than their successors.
I am new to your site, I wanted to ask you a question, unrelated to this blog. During one of your video discussions, you pointed out the differences between the teaching of Paul and Jesus. You mentioned Jesus taught to follow the commandments (with a discussion with a rich young man), however, Paul taught that one should find salivation and forgiveness of sin by believing on Jesus. However, keep in mind that Jesus had not yet suffered death by impalement, so as a Jew he taught the 10 Commandments, not any worship toward him. It was only after his sacrifice did he become the source of salvation, not beforehand. What if he decided not to endure this death on a cross? Might this be a valid reason for the differences between Paul and Jesus.
Thank you,
Richard Signarino
Yes, that is a common way to reconcile the two. The problem I’ve always had with it is that if Jesus was indeed right that if someone repented of their sins God would forgive them, then there would have been no need for him to die at all. God could have just kept on forgiving sins.
Of all the ancient documents that have been found to present day, that is the ones wrote by the apostolic and church fathers, have the scholars been able to read them all, or is there any still awaiting to be analized?
All of them have been read and analyzed intensely by many, many scholars.
1/2: Hi Professor Ehrman, before I get into my argument, I would like to note just how much I would like to be a student of yours, even though my current major at UGA in accounting. I have always been intrigued by your debate skills, and repeatedly watch your debates with William Lane Craig, Robert Price, and Mike Licona. (Sadly I did not get to watch your 8 hour long “chess” match with him though I will someday) even though I no longer am a stereotypical “conservative” Christian, I still would write papers in your class with theses arguing against some of the popular books you have written, such as “How Jesus Became God” and “Forged.”
My principle thesis is this: that Jesus was understood to be on an equal footing with the Father long before gJohn even existed. I think that Mike Licona has made fair points on Jesus being God in gMark: (e.g. Jesus’ calming of the storm, since only YHWH was in charge of the weather and the seas in the earlier chapters of the Gospel; and Jesus having divine powers to heal others without the help of the Father).
Thanks for your kind words.
I”d say being empowered by God to do things is not the same as being equal with God. Elijah could do things only God could do but it was not because he was God. Other Jewish miracle workers even in Jesus’ day — and down to modern times — were reputed to do amazing things with the weather, but were not seen as equal with God.
The list of NT books was not settled as a matter of faith for all Christians by 367, even if there were some letters from theological superstars. If it had been settled back in 367, it would not have been the important concern that it was at the Synod of Hippo (393 CE), and at the third and sixth Councils of Carthage (397 and 419).
Settling the matter of “which books” required the leadership of different Christian groups collectively recognizing and proclaiming a list of books as inspired and authoritative. The makeup of the NT wasn’t settled as a matter of faith for all Christians at least until groups of Reformers settled it for themselves in the 1500’s, and then the Catholic Church took a turn and officially settled it as a matter of faith for Catholics at the Council of Trent.
Imo, it ought to be remembered that no NT books (also no OT books) have any inherent authority. Any authority they have has to be conferred upon them by individuals or groups.
2/2: Further, I think the Pauline epistles bolster my argument, in that Phillippians 2:6-11 makes Christ equal with God, as Jesus is “bestowed the name that is above every other name”, a callback to (Is. 45:23).
Colossians also deserves some attention, as (even though you write in Forged against Pauline authorship), as it is quite clear in chapter 1:15-17 that Christ was “the firstborn of all creation” and by him “all things were made”.
Are not these verses proof that Pauline theology included within its creeds that Jesus was co-equal with the father, even despite the Trinity being hierarchical in nature, and that even the earliest Christians believed Jesus to be YHWH in human form?
In Summary, I believe the divinity of Jesus can be found very early, in our earliest epistles from Paul, and from our earliest Gospel, gMark, and that these examples ( though there are more to find within the NT) prove that there was more to Jesus Christ than being a mere magician or street performer.
P.S.: I pray that you receive this argument as you would any other scholar, that you would “grade” it like you would any other student. Thank you
Yes, Paul does indicate that Christ was made equal with God at the resurrection/exaltation. But that precisely shows that he was not equal with God before the resurrection (in Paul’s view). None of the authors of the NT speak of Christ as YHWH. John indicates they were in some ways “equal” — but that is again precisely not the same as saying they were “identical,” as most of our surviving early Church theologians — e.g., Tertullian emphatically — argued. When Jesus was praying, he wasn’t talking to himslelf.
Is it correct that these arguments about what was canon and what should be discarded as heresy were argued among the Western theologians / Bishops and, later, the Eastern Orthodox leaders? Where did the illiterate and far more populous common Christian stand on all of this?
What was the common Christian’s access to the arguments, and is there any evidence they gave a hoot about what the church leaders thought? What did they believe?
I am always reminded of my father, who rarely went to church after he was baptized. His belief was “once saved, always saved,” and he thought our pastor was spouting gibberish every Sunday.
I wonder if the average farmer and joiner in the first few centuries just wanted community and health services and believed whatever was required to obtain them.
I recollect a quote from a church father, though I can’t remember which, saying that the Shepherd of Hermas was an excellent book but quite recent and he knew the author. So perceived antiquity was also a criterion.
That’s in the Muratorian Fragment.
Dear Mr. Ehrman,
recently I finish book “How Jesus became God” with great interest and made some remarks, which I would like to present here
1.You are coming to conslusion that only Jesus uniqueness which lead so big succes was ressurection (respectively that communities come to believe in Jesus resurection). I think it is questionable concernig fact that real Jesus ministry was apocalyptic and his teaching does not lead to ressurection expectation-therefore believability of resurection getting low and this fact alone probably could not ensure big succes.
Therefore I think that important role was played by significantly changed Jesus ministry by early authors (as Paul) by the putting (invented?) proclamation to Jesus lips and presenting his supernatural deeds as:
-I am the way…,nobody comes to father except..,who knows father knows me, who eat my body and drink my blood…and establishment ritual by last supper
-healing, (casting demons), Lazarus ressurection, water walking,food multiplying, water to wine trasmutation
That all these statements was believed by communitiies and contributed (with fact of resurection) to one of biggest world religion origin, means that relevant inventors, must be ingenious (at least as Jesus himself) !!
Thanks, Tomas
2.Your opinion for ressurection probability, namely statement that it can not
be historically proved but as well disproved. I think that important is, how is possible that these first whom was message of resurrection passed believe it without doubts (necessary for further spreading despite more plausible explanation (hallucination, moving the body, no really death)
Concerning kinds of raised body: matter, spiritual and matter-spiritual it could be interesting to discuss what is more “probable” if
-fully resscurection of mortal body (big change but to surelly existed form)
or
-transmuttation of mortal body to some form of spirit, i.e. not so material body (not so big change but to form which existence is not proved)
Argumentation on p.185 with D.Allison is questionable as I think for strong believers of fully bodily ressurection (a) is more crucial (after vision of Jesus) if tomb is really empty or not than for believers of other form of ressurection (b) as:
Empty tomb:
a-OK Jesus raised fully bodily
b-OK body was moved, or fully transmutted to spiritual body
Body in tomb
a-NOT OK! I had hallucination, Jesus did not raise, and so he was not messiah
b-OK matter body reamin while spiritual body escaped
Last century, buying lots of books from HongKong Christian book store on European & American Christian greats & their works.
The substance of books have much not with the translator accuracy, but the publishing house editor as that person adjusts the tone of the book to fit the message that best matches the publishing house.
The church I grew up in was utmost a publishing house: primarily translated Watchman Nee’s conferences &Witness Lee works, so I avoided that [having read many in my Freshman year of undergrad] when I began “to make my life right with Christ”.
So instead, I read watchman Nee books from an UK publisher translated notes by former English missionary to China. Talk about “lost in translation” who knows what Watchman Nee lectured during those years in between WW1 & WW2. We definitely were not feeling those tensions & lack the feeling of urgency & desperation during those unfAmiliar times.
Note 2) When I was teaching Business “Organizational Management” at a Junior College in Shanghai Fall, 2002. As for the students papers, how great were their translation software & how hard did those students spend trying to improve or worsen the translation for me not to suspect foul play.
Dear Mr. Ehrman,
I allow myself to put below next remarks concerning book “How Jesus became God”:
I found some contradiction in the text:
a)first you state that disciples (at least some of them) was strong believers whose do not need see empty tomb to believe that fully bodily resurrected Jesus stood front of them and later you state that disciples does not believe in fully bodily resurrected Jesus and needs lot of proofs…
b) I think that “Statement that after dead Soul gone to heaven is common” is questionable
as major part of society believe for nothing after dead..
c) If you informing that in antique Rome was adopted son appreciated much more than birth son would not be for early christian writers much more advantageous keep point of view that Jesus was born as human and subsequently (by baptizing for example) adopted by God for his quality, merits, and so on?
with hope that you will find some time to read these remarks
best regards, Tomas
a. Yes, different passages say different things that cannot be reconciled. b. In America at least the majority of people still believe in heaven and hell. c. And adopted son may have been more valuable than a biologirclal son; but a person who was God was more valuable than both.
There is an interesting interview today. https://www.npr.org/2024/10/18/nx-s1-5151333/nationalist-christians-rally-to-repent-for-what-they-consider-to-be-the-nations-sins
These people have close to NO idea what it is to be a decent follower of Christ. The last administration set the attitude and many played out of anger and violence.
A few days ago, I spoke to a Shanghai “sister”, and she confirmed that the apostles and disciples and most of the prophets lived miserable lives. Why shouldn’t we- life in China is very tough!
A pastor at a San Francisco church of Taishan parent immigrants 1990: hell is our lives on earth [paraphrase]
I really wonder about predestination and being called out.
Thank you ,I understand,
ad b), yes I believe, Czech republic (where I am from) is one of most atheistical europe countries..
Dear Mr. Ehrman,
can I still ask you, how you explain yourself fact, message abour ressurection was widely accepted (believed) by them whom was first passed by disciples , despite that there is more plausible explanation (hallucination, moving the body, no really death etc.) ?
Thank you , Tomas Bruha
The vast majority of people did NOT believe it. Only a few did. Then a few more. Then a few more.
Dear Mr. Ehrman,
I allow myself still one remark concerning your book “How Jesus became God”:
He intrigued me term “Heavenly body”. It is quite interesting , If I understand well it means true matter body which is enable to interact with the other matter by superstition ways.. (although regarding to quantum mechanics is better to say by highly improbable way) and this lead me to thinking about lets to say “hallucinations probability level” as like this:
-no matter ghost body is quite probable
– matter body which is possible to touch is much more less probable
– matter body which can for example penetrated through walls very very low probable
Accor. this is possible postulating point of view that if some disciples claimed to percepted fully bodily Jesus(as for example possibility touching his wounds, eating etc) , who simultaneously
perform supernatural action ( as for example wall penetrating, levitation, disappearing and appearing)
It means that highly probably a) makes up their mind (lies) or b) saw reality. … What you think?
I”m afraid I’m having trouble following your questoin, especially at the end. The disciples would not have had our modern concept of materiality or afterlife, so a real body coming back to life with supernatural powers would not have seemed highly improbable to them. Theythought that such things did and would happen. If they said it happened, that wouldn’t mean either that they liked or saw reality. It could mean they mistakenly saw soomething that they didn’t, or imagined the whole thing, or dreamed it and took the dream as reality, or — or there are other explanations we could all think of….
Dear Mr. Ehrman, thank you very much
-concerning first question, I understand (so this spreading of belief could be something like exponencial process..)
-concerning second question, I just intended to say that if we take in account hallucination (or dreaming) it is
not so usually to have feeling of really matter body (can be touch) which afterwards for example penetrating through wall as perception of purely ghost body..
by another worlds, that they mistakenly saw something that they did not seems me much more probably than they mistakenly touch something , that was not
but I understand , that int hat times ws quite different concept of materiality…..
Thank you
Dear Mr. Ehrman, can I still ask you for your opinion concerning importance of proclamation and deeds of Jesus which was (most probably) invented by early Christian authors for sucessfull widespreading of christianity comparing to message about Jesus resurection?
Thank you!
I’m not quite sure what you want to know about them? I have a book where I discuss the issue, called “Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembrered, Changed, and INvented Their Stories of the Savior.”
Thank you, I just ordered this book. 🙂
Dear Mr. Ehrman, thank you for your answer and book reccomendation. I´ll try to get these books.
Thank you and best regards, Tomas Bruha
Dear Mr. Ehrman, now I am reading your book “Did Jesus Exist” and on page 82 you write “no solitary source which invented Jesus idea possibly exist”. If can I ask, I just wonder how would be such source recognizable from source describing historicall Jesus, i.e. what could imply within this document invention of Jesus as there
surely would not be explicit statement that this document describing invented Jesus..
THank you and lot of succes Tomas Bruha
The sentence that you quote from p. 82 is not grammatical and I’m not sure what it means. Could you look it up and quote exactly as I wrote it?
Dear Mr. Ehrman, I apologize for wrong citation, sentences on pg.82 which I am refer are correctly:
“We cannot think of the Early Christians as going back to a solitary source that “invented” the idea that there was a man named Jesus”
and “where would the solitary source that “invented” Jesus be?
Thank you Tomas Bruha
I’m saying there is no solitary source. There were multiple sources, from the outset.
Thank you, I understand,
Best regards Tomas Bruha
Dear Mr. Ehrman, I just finish your book “Did Jesus exist” and have few question and remarks:
1) I would like to point out that if is possible with high probability to prove that Jesus really existed and his life, deeds and claims were as expected from apocalypthic prophet , of which existed within this times more, how it comes that just his person was taken for postulation ”son of God” character with claims and deeds described within evangelia and finally ressurected and on his base was subseuqently created and spreaded one from most expanded and succesfull religion nowadays-so what was with him different compare those similar to him? Something must be there, beacouse as is used to say “ex nihilo nihili fit“ it‘s not true?
2)If succesfull spreading of christianity was just coincidence and was not induced by any relevant historical phenomenon, therefore here arise question of significance of historical Jesus for Christendom as such.
continuing in next…
I’d say the major difference btween Jesus and others is that his some of his followers claimed to see him alive afterward, and convinced others. I talk about this in my book How Jesus Became God.
I would not say that Christianity spread by pure accident; there are reasons it spread whereas other religions did not. That’s the topic of my book The Triumph of Christianity.
3) I mean if historical Jesus in fact does not:
-be born by virgin
-be annointed by God as his beloved son after baptizing
-heal sick, cripples, give sight to blind
-ressurecting Lazar
-multiple food
-walking by the water
-claim that hi is “only truth, way and life” and who is believing in him will be ressurected last day
-teach the Lords prayer
-give last supper and proclaim transmutation of body-breed and blood-vine
-be ressurected and elevated to heaven after crucifiction
which importance therefore he has for the present Christianity and society at all?
THank you very much for your potential time concerning attention to these topics
It completely depends on which Christians you speak to. Many Christians think his ethical teachings are mainly what matter; others think teh model he set by giving of himself for others; other think that he died for the sins of the world even if some/all of the mirales did not happen as narrated.
Dear Mr. Ehrman,
thank you very much for your answer, I understand that there is nowadays more different Christian group (dirrection). But I suppose that official pope church (rome-catholic) is based on belief in Jesus deeds and characteristic which I named in my remark…
Concerning difference between Jesus and others prophets I understand as well , Here is come to me question, whether these followers really belief that see ressurected Jesus (had some vision) or just invented this…
Anyway I will like to read mentioned book “Triumph of Christianity”.
At the end I would like to say that I can mark myself as agnostic as well, but Jesus personality and questions concerned him fascinating me already long time. (as I dont like Christmass, so differently Easter has some intensive spiritual sense for me..)
So I wish you nice Easter and lot of succes.
Best regards, Tomas Bruha
Thanks. I think some of the disciples really believed they saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion. My most detailed explanation of that is in my book How Jesus Became God.
Dear Mr. Ehrmann,
as I try to get next information concerning christianity origin problematic from another source, recently I read book „The Jesus Mysteries“ from author Freeke and Gandy.
Concerning this book, I got in mind following question: If it is truth what author says about lot of features of older pagan mysteries concernig Osyris-Dionysus cult which christianity contains as well (as for example virgin born, miracles, death men resurection, crucifiction, raising from dead, blood-vine, body-bread ritual etc.) is it not more probable that these features was taken from pagan cults and injected to Jesus life (as his real life as apocalyptic prophet does not contain most of these features) then suddenly invented by “ingenious“ characters as some disciples or for example Paul, Peter, Thomas, or even by evangelist author?
(I mean this as question apart from Jesus historical existence-I do not agree with authors denying of its)
Thank you for your potential opinion and have nice days,
best regards, T.Bruha
I’m afraid the authors are not scholars of antiquity and simply don’t know a great deal about what they discuss. If you’d like to learn about the mystery cults of antiquity, I’d suggest an expert account; you might start with Marvin Meyer, The Ancient Mysteries.
Thank you very much, for suggestion, I will try get this book.
best regards, T.Bruha
Dear Mr. Ehrman, I would like to ask you if you know Netflix series “Chosen” and what is your opinion about this “reconstruction” of Jesus life from point of view of different person which meet him. It seems me quite good shaped as Jesus is imagined as partly normal (very kind but as well assertive) human but step by step become aware his anointing and divinity and disciples as very human different individuality with its own weakness and difficultly starting to understand Jesus truly role and task. Quite significant seems me person of Nicodemus, which is imagined as very educated scholar with high authority, and insight who is in fact only from Sanhedrin start to believe that Jesus is truly Christ. (But figure of Josef Arimatie missing).Concerning Judas betrayal motivation here is I think clearly showed that he wants to force Jesus express his truly power as for example at least disabled arresting soldier, set free and subsequently overthrow Roman power and prove that he is one that Judas hopes for(Concerning this is little strange that Judas asking Kaifas for money and even bargain with him! – it seems me little self-serving as just for fulfilling tradition.. ).
I’m afraid I haven’t been able to bring myself to watch it….
Series surprisingly finish by arrival of soldiers to Gethsemane and Judas kiss after quite long Jesus meditation with showing his sadness, wake up sleeping disciples, instruct them not to sleep and pray (spirit would like but body is weak..) several asking to Lord take this cup from him but subsequently say became your will not may. This was little disappointing as I was wonder how this series deal with so to say “culmination” of whole story but nevertheless I evaluating this series quite high and can suggest.
So my question is, in in case that you know this series, which its features are in accordance and which in
dis-accordance with your own opinion concerning most probably feature of life of Jesus as apocalyptic prophet.
Thank you and lot of success to year 2026.
Tomas Bruha
Ok, it just suggestion for free time…
Now I finishing book Ancient Mysteries, can you give my some suggestion for ned book?
Thanks Tomas Bruha
Completely depends on what you’re interested in the most.
Dear Mr. Ehrmann, I just finishing the book, you suggested me “The Ancient Mysteries” and must say that problematic which I opened in my last question concerning connection between ancient mysteries and features of Jesus life remains. In epilogue of this book is stated that most deities in mystery religions provide some basic feature-i.e. dying and rising savior as Jesus. Only different is that in Christianity this ancient story reach powerful conclusion and final vindication.
So do you think, that feature of resurrection (and maybe as well kind of his dead -i.e. crucifixion) was injected to Jesus real life which as I understand from your opinion was life of apocalyptic prophet?
Thank you very much for your potential answer and have nice day..
Tomas Bruha
I don’t think you actually get the same kind of dying and rising god in the mysteries and with Jesus. The mysteries sometimes had gods who died and then were raised. But the earliest Christian traditions (before Jesus was declared as a pre-existent being who came to earth) understood Jesus as a mortal who had been raised to immortality. So it’s similar, but not the same. And the earliest believers who said Jesus was raised from the dead were lower class peasants from rural Galilee; they would not have known about the Greek mystery religions. They *would* have known generally, though, the widespread view that someone who was taken up to heaven was made a divine being, and it was that that made them think of Jesus as divine.
Thanks, I think my main interest is question of origin and reason for invention (if it is invention..) of Jesus life features as known from evangelia, contrary to most probable real life of Jesus. (as for. ex. apocalypthic prophet)
Thank you Tomas
Maybe you’d be interested in ny book Jesus BEfore the Gospels?
Dear Mr. Ehrmann,
thank you very much for exhaustive and
well-founded answer and tip for book-I will try.
Best regards, Tomas Bruha
Dear Mr. Ehrmann, your reply concerning similarity/dissimilarity of Jesus with older dying and rising God tradition, leads me to question of origin idea of Jesus as mortal men raised from death.
I think there is four alternatives:
a)Jesus was son of God and actually was raised from death to heaven
b)Believers which expand this idea have vision ( hallucination or religious ecstasy) of live Jesus after his death (i.e. they actually believe in resurrection)
c) Some from believers invented idea of raising Jesus for supporting his divinity
d) Jesus death was staged by group of closest believers, (“according the book „Passover Plot“), so Jesus really was seen live after his „death”.
I think, if we ignore first most improbably alternative which is obviously all-explaining, emerging question is: was on Jesus while his “normal” life so special, unlike to other similar prophet and religious teacher these times that more and more people which were not potential eyewitnesses of living resurrected Jesus, starting to believe in such improbable phenomenon?
Or , respectively why group of believers put in the effort to realize complicated operation of staged death? ( they should have some reason to believe that wide public will believe in resurrection)
I think you would be interested in my book How Jesus Became God where I have a reasonably full explanation of why JEsus’ followers came to believe he was raised from the dead. (Short story: one or more of them afterward thought they saw him alive0
(In this hypothesising I put away question of take-up to heaven phenomenon itself after resurrection..)
SO, can I ask you what you think about this problematic, resp. which from noted alternatives (if any) you evaluated as most probable ?
Thank you and have nice day, Tomas Bruha
I don’t think any duplicity was involved. I discuss visoins ion my book I just mentioned, and “mistaken identity” is also a possibilit, I should think.
Dear Mr. Ehrmann, thank you for answer, I nderstandt and I will study mention book. I see, thant “mistaken identity” is also possibility although I think there is question of instant reaction of this mistaken person…)
Have nice day, Tomas Bruha
Dear Mr. Ehrmann, I have now just one comment, concerning book How Jesus became God:
within part, which dealing with Jesus childhood, there is paragraph about rewarding palm tree for faithful response to Jesus command-subsequently Jesus announces that this palm tree will refresh all the saints in paradise. I was thinking about this note, as up to know I though that idea of “Saints” especially these occupied “paradise ” is emerged not before that with spreading of Christianity…. ?
Thank you for pottential correction
best regards, Tomas Bruha
The term “saints” is used already by Paul in our earliest Christian writings (e.g., he addresses 1 Corinthians to the “saints” who are in Corinth”). Paul does not talk about saints “in paradise” though; that’s a later idea.
Thank you, so if I understand well it means that mentioned story from Jesus childhood must be surely invented….
Dear Mr. Ehrmann, while readign your book “How Jesus became God” following question emerged to me:
I understand, that appropriate storyteller could convicted another person and so on and it could finally lead to group distorted memories.
But, at very beginning, there had to be some person, who come to believe these features (ressurection, miracles etc.) by different way then listening it from other person.
Of course, there is possibility that this “first person“ invented all of this stuff, but in this case, what would be impulse for this?
I think that concerning „ressurection“ there for example could be mistaken tomb or mistaken identity, but what about „miracles“..? I do not think that hallucination is probable in this case and concerning some form of religious exctasy -(it could be potentially as well case of seeing raised Jesus) if this should work ,there should be apriori some predisposition of appropriate “eyewitness” or as to say “psychical adjusting“ for seeing something like this.
Thank you for your pottential opinion and lot of sucees, Tomas Bruha
Yes, that’s why I think someone (maybe a few people) actually did believe they saw Jesus alive afterward. Otherwise it’s hard to explain why it caught on so widely. I don’t have the same problem with miracles, since they were and still are widely reported and a large majority of humans living over the past two millennia have no problem thinking they happened. They are attributed to all sorts of people most of whom most of us would say, yeah, that never happened….
Thank you, yes I understand
😀
Dear Mr. Ehrmann, long time ago I red book “Head of God-lost treasure of templars” (maybe you know..). From “Jesus before Gospels” I understand that you do not believe in Jesus resurrection, nor taken up to heaven I have question: In mentioned book author conclude, that is probable, that while templars digging under former Solomon Temple for “holy grail” searching they find embalmed head of Jesus which subsequently adored on their secret rituals and after order was suppressed, some of them managed escape to Scotland and deposit this most sacred reliquiae under apprentice column within Roslyn Chapel. Concerning origin of this embalmed head, it is according author like this, that Jesus bloodline derivates back from heresy faraon Achnaton (which was in fact Moses) and was involved in cult of sacred heads -maybe as well according his membership in Nazorene sect (not Jesus from Nazareth but Jesus Nazorene which held cult of sacred long hair head as well. Thus after his death his head was separated from body and embalmed.
So my question is if you have any opinion concerning this hypothesis, resp. if you think that this is possible…
Thank you, and have nice day Tomas Bruha
Historically there is no basis for it. (Or hint of it)
Ok, thanks for answer (Although Rosslyn Chappel is very incredible object, this hyphothesis seems me very improbable as well.)
Anyway, happy Easter
Dear Mr. Ehrmann,
I would like to ask something concerning your thesis in paragraph “Memories of Jesus´s Passion”
You discuss possibility of inadvertently distorted memories about Jesus life, resp. that people who invented stories really believed that they happened (except in the case of deliberating invention). I am not sure what you mean-for example hallucination, or some vision connected with religious ecstasy?
Or these people once imagined some events with Jesus and by the time they forgot that they just imagined it and got in mind that they really experienced it? -do you think that this possibility is probable? -I mean, do you think that we, in present time experienced some phenomenon?. (for example my feelings is that me not but…)
Thank you and I wish you happy and quiet Easter.
One way to look at it is thorugh modern analogies. Rumors and gossip happen all the time. Sometimes it’s because someone is consciously making up something (grand or nasty) about someone; but sometimes it’s just what they’ve misheard/misseen/misunderstood — and they really believe it’s true. The next person tells the story assured that it is true and changes it inadvertently (or intentionally) and so on. Over time, distortions can become quite extreme. And the “time” it takes is not necessarily 30 years. It can happen overnight — or just in minutes. Often does!
Dear Mr. Ehrmann,
thank you for answer I understand, that there is more possibilites how its all begun.
And of course 30 years is quite long time for significant distortion of original experience.
Can I have still one question, now concerning person of Mathew- I read that Mathew could not personally
listen sermon on the Mount as he lived outside of Palestine five decades after the events he narrated. But before you wrote that authors of gospels are unknown- these names was atributed lately according rules you describing. So should it be understood that some person “Mathew” exist and wrote gospel or rather not?
Thank you again and have nice time
Ah, right — it’s hard to keep all these views straight. When someone says that “Matthew”lived outside Palestine five decades later, they are not referring to the “Matthew” who is described in the Gospel as one of Jesus’ followers. They are simply talking about the author of Matthew, whatever his name was. He lived later and elsewhere.
Yes, thank you for answer, it is clear now.
best regards, Tomas
Dear Mr. Ehrmann,
while reading your book “Jesus before the Gospel” I found that between gist memories of Jesus Death circumstances which probably happen you put that “One of Jesus´s disciples , Judas Iscariot cooperated with ruling authorities, which arrested Jesus”.
My question is, if you have some opinion concerning detailed description of Judas activities and his motivation. (For example, do you suppose probable that Judas betray Jesus in order to push him express his really power and “destroy whole Roman army“ etc.. and that really Judas kissed Jesus in order to mark him, if et least some from arresting commando must know his face.. or if Judas really get 30 silver coins if he probably does not want any money, what have happened with him subsequently and so on.
Thank you and lot of succes Tomas Bruha
Yes, I have a book that goes into this, The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot; although the book is about the Gnostic Gospel of Judas, I devote a section to what we can say historically about Judas. If you doa word search for “Iscariot” on the blog, you’ll find a number of posts on it. Among other things I argue that Judas did not betray Jesus’ whereabouts but his claim to be the future Jewish King (which is why he was crucified); and I explain the various optoins people have put forth for why he did what he did, but in the end I’m afraid there is no real way to know.
Dear Mr Ehrman , thank you for answer just please what you mean by sequence “I argue that Judas did not betray Jesus’ whereabouts but his claimto be the future Jewish King”.? -(put it to translator with no very sense..-
I am not sure about term “whereabout”).
Thank you !
Sorry. The Gospels indicate that Judas told the authorities where they could find Jesus (his “whereabouts”) when there were no crowds around him. I’m arguing that he actually did much more than that, reveaed his private teaching that they could use to charge him with.
Dear Mr. Ehrman, thank you for answer. Now it is more clear, I suppose to get mentioned book.
Best regards Tomas Bruha