(18 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5)
Loading...Translators of the Bible have a terrifically complicated and difficult (and usually thankless) task. I always knew that, of course, with my head – ever since taking Greek back in college. But I did not relate to the problems emotionally until I started publishing translations of my own. It’s HARD. My first translation project was a two-volume edition of the Apostolic Fathers for the Loeb Classical Library (published by Harvard University Press). It was at that point that I realized that what translators do is not at all what the rest of us do who can teach the ancient languages and read Greek and assign Greek translation exercises to classes of graduate students. When you are with a class of students, you can sit around the table, discuss the various options about how a text can be translated, talk about the pro’s and con’s of various English renditions, make a few suggestions for how to provide nuance to a rendering, explicate the fuller meaning of the Greek by paraphrasing a phrase or a clause in several English sentences to capture the fuller meaning, and so on. But when you’re publishing a translation, you have to make a DECISION and type a few words instead of some other words. It’s really really hard at first.
One of the other problems faced by translators of ancient texts (unlike modern, in most instances) has not occurred to most readers of these translations. It involves what, exactly, to translate. The problem with a book like the New Testament is that
The rest of this post deals with an issue that most people on the planet have never considered before. If you want to read more, join the blog! Click here for membership options
This post would be an (alternative) excellent, comprehensive response to Mr. White, when the latter asked you to mention a variant that alters the meaning of an entire book!
This gets tricky. I am not sure that it is so much a question of a translation as it is of what text to use as the basis for that translation. And that is more a textual criticism matter, as you will probably agree. In this case, there comes a philosophical question in presenting a Bible text that has become more or less established. Somehow, I would tend to agree that both traditions need to be accounted for. Perhaps you would be happier to reverse the text and the note. No solution is probably perfect.
How well do you think we can reconstruct the original texts of the four Gospels? Do you think there are major doctrinal questions that are open to debate based on us not knowing what the “originals” say? (And there’s some problem defining what is the “original” as well”).
1. My guess is “pretty well.” But it’s just a guess and a MAJOR part of it rides on what you mean by “original.” 2. No, doctrines are never based on a single word or phrase, so any of them that get changed won’t effect the doctrine per se. That’s not why the changes are important. There are millions of things that they don’t effect that are REALLY imporant (such as what it means to be a good human being or what kind of single malt you prefer).
Bart,
Don’t miss that, “This cup that is poured out for you is the New Covenant *in my blood*” comes from Qumran’s Damascus Document, “New Covenant in the Land of Damasus,” with ‘Dam’ as Hebrew for ‘blood’ and ‘chos’ for ‘cup.’ Paul is attacking James and his Qumran followers with thinly veiled word play, coming up with his own version of salvation — blood salvation — mocking Jamesian blood purity observances, that is in his mind, THE LAW.
Yes, Eisenman.
Curious what you have to say about the insertion of this new emphasis in Luke/Acts on Jesus dying “for you.” Eisenman wrote a lake’s worth of ink on it. It didn’t come from Christ, that is clear.
The insertion was made by scribes who were familiar with the accounts in the other Synoptics both to harmonize Luke to them and to emphasize the salvific character of Jesus’ death as an atonement. I argue this at length in my book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.
Ha. I knew what you wrote, I just forgot! No wonder it struck me curiously. I even quoted you on the Wescott and Hort debate over it from ‘Orthodox Corruption’ in my first book! Eisenman says Paul was well aware of The Damascus Document and other Scrolls and any derogatory allusions there regarding James’s directives banning the consumption of blood. Luke, as compatriot of Paul, perhaps installed this later in his Gospel as a favor or someone was directed to add the embellishment to, as you say, harmonize the Synoptics. I even suggested that you and Eisenman might enjoy comparing views on it!
Pages 152-154, ‘The Bible Says Saviors – Obadiah 1:21.’
Hi Dr Ehrman!
How do historians view the identity of Jesus’ father? Who was he, to the historian, or who was he likely to have been?
Thank you!
Probably named Joseph; impoverished; uneducated; Jewish; probably worked with his hand; a hand to mouth existence; at least seven children with Mary; lived in Nazareth; likely grew up there; probalby never left there much.
Mr. Ehrman, where do we draw our information about his children with Mary from?
Mark 6:3.
Thank you Dr Ehrman!
So how does the historian explain all of the claims to Jesus’ virgin birth? Why would Mary have claimed it to be a virgin birth?
Thank you!
The virgin birth is mentioned only in Matthew and Luke, and they talk about it in different and contradictory ways. There is nothing to suggest that Mary claimed it, and some very good reasons to think she didn’t. (If she did, why don’t the other Gospels writers or Paul or the others appear to ahve heard of it? And why would Mark suggest in 3:21 that she and her other sons thought Jesus had gone out of his mind?)
Hi Dr. Ehrman!
The prophesy of virgin, instead of ‘maiden’ birth could be scribal error, I think I read that in your books.
There’s also tons of human virgin births in medical literature. Once stuff gets near stuff, *shrug*.
1. PBS: “Third-century AD records show that Jewish thinkers discussed the possibility of human insemination by artificial means.”
https://www.pbs.org/bloodlines/timeline/text_timeline.html?utm_source=pocket_mylist
2. Ok, 3rd century. So you know how royals treasured ‘good breeding,’ but what they meant was power alliances? (Hapsburg SMH). Even before Nabataeans were famous for frankincense & myrrh, they were famooous for breeding *wellness* (into horses) BCE.
3. Galilee area records show a mass moving of Nabataeans ~1rst Century BC?, and converting:
https://books.google.com/books/about/Archaeology_and_the_Galilean_Jesus.html?id=Xrav1ge-A_sC&utm_source=pocket_mylist
4. Recurrent Galilee unrest was in small part bc Herods didn’t have that list of Jewish ancestors. (Disregarding traditions moreso). Peace-loving Nabs had been helping choose Jewish leadership since ~168 BC. (Peace-loving — when do royals have “servant”, like public servant, in names of the whole family?)
5. They deify their king:
“And he [Obodas] works without reward or favor, and he, when death tried to claim us, did not let it claim us, for when a wound of us festered, he did not let us perish.”
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/nabataean-inscriptions/
Not in the realm of the impossible, right?
“Nowhere else in these entire two volumes is Jesus’ death “for” others”
Thank you.
I just dl’d Misquoting Jesus from my library again.
About that meal — why is Jesus and his big crowd never mentioned enjoying *olive oil*?
Just like Europe has that butter/olive oil dividing line in r/mapporn, that area had one too — olive oil/sesame oil.
Your mind at uncovering layers of text is so appreciated. Are there any books you recommend on symbology for that time, Dr. Ehrman?
Matthew 7:15
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.”
What was Rome’s most famous myth of themselves? Raised by wolves.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_and_Remus
Who is the shepherd that protect?
And yet a quick look at the Biblehub and no one mentions it!
Kittim is Rome in the DSS. Instead of using Rome’s own myth, they use *their own myth*, as a general term for “Westerners”, hearkening to Genesis 10:4.
So in the First Century, it seems folks are escaping to the *East* of the Jordan — to the Nabatean, nomadic tiiiny empire including Damascus & Petra.
Where Strabo relays that they grow sesame, and not olives. Olive groves do not end up well for Jesus, maybe.
It strikes me that choosing to omit a few verses from the middle of a document under revision invites a whole world more aggravation than omitting from the end or even adding verses: specifically, the need to renumber the verses remaining in the chapter. Are there other cases of the revisers having the courage to take this on in the NRSV? If not, as a survivor of countless academic committee meetings, I can feature a strong, silent bias operating (editorial fatigue?) to just let it go.
“I may tell it in a later post. ”
I think you’re a maaaaaaaster at this. I superhope we get that post — put it in a new book get some shekels.
(also I emailed to say I double-commented above, bc I edited in another browser. Comment #2 is finished.)
So beyond pondering the lotsa cups in the Nabataean tradition, don’t Pharisees give general meal blessings *at the end of meals*?
Essenes give them at the beginning.
And I read more of that Matthew. Imo, it’s such a gimme!
Mathew 7:16
“By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?”
(so, most grapes and figs are good, but some may be like wolves in sheep’s clothing. look at their actions.)
Gematria for the numerate
Fruit for the normies
What fruit was each country most famous for?
Grapes: Rome
Figs: Turkey (ik, ik Tarsus)
Olives: Israel
Balsam: Nabatea
“In a certain valley in this region there grows what is called balsam, from which there is a great income since nowhere else in the inhabited world is this plant found.”
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/19E*.html
(It’s the Balsam of Gilead)
Who is a wolf (Roman) in sheep (Israel)’s clothing? Who is a grape-fig? (Roman-Tarsus)?
Who was on The Way’s butt, and the only person smited by Jesus?
So the scribal addition is what caused the passage to have Jesus taking the cup twice, correct?
Yup.
Even in the shortened form of verse 19 “Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying This is my body” isnt he saying that his broken body is being given to the disciples?
You could interpret it to mean that, but it’s not what it says. It could mean a range of things — for example, a more natural reading would probably be: look, my body is going to be broken like this bread.
But Luke 22:19 has the same language as the feeding of the five thousand. Where Jesus gives thanks, breaks the bread and gives to the disciples to feed the masses.
Therefore the bread of the broken body of Jesus is to be eaten as well.
Along with the wine which is to be divided among the disciples isn’t this the language of a sacrificial meal?
I”m not sure what you’re saying. Do you think teh feeding of the 5000 is meant to teach that Jesus’ body was sacrificed for others? Luke’s passion account is usually read as reflecting a *martyrdom* rather than a sacrifice.
In the feeding of the five thousand the bread is blessed and divided up and is eaten.
In the last supper the bread is blessed divided up and intended to be eaten. But this time it is the broken body of Jesus. Its a sacrificial meal.
Although it could be argued that Luke has forgotten to remove this reference to sacrifice like he did the others. But its still there.
Though I think Luke did intend a small bit of the Matthew/Mark sacrificial material to be left in – Luke 22:37 “It is written and he was numbered with the transgressors and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me, yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” being the Luke’s hidden explanation of Christ’s passion.
Robert Alter writes about the same problem, which he faced in translating the Hebrew Scriptures (which is the translation I mostly rely on). He starts with the Masoretic Text from the 10th century (the one that is now accepted as authoritative), but he compares it with older manuscripts and translations, from the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Septuagint (rarely) and various Targums (translations into Aramaic). And even then he sometimes has to admit his rendering is a best guess about the original.
One problem I do have with him is his tendency to get literal. For example, he translates מְבֻשָֽׁיו in Deut. 25:11 as “pudenda,” which, he explains in a footnote, is because the root of the Hebrew word means “shame,” and “pudenda,” which means genitals, comes from a Latin word for shame. Technically, he’s correct, but “pudenda” is more often used for female genitalia, which would cause readers to get confused over just what the woman is grabbing in this verse.
Bottom line: “traduttore, traditore” as the Italians say – to translate is to betray.
Very interesting post, thanks.
In your opinion, did Jesus believe or teach that his own death was to be an atoning sacrifice for the sake of others?
No, I’m fully convinced he did not.
Thank you for the enlightenment 😊😊
The Qur’an: “This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.” (Qur’an (Soorah Al-Maa’idah 5:3).
For Muslims, Islam is the chosen religion.
The English words “have chosen” in this sura are from the Arabic (waraḍītu). Five Arabic scholars translate it as “chosen,” and two, Arberry and Sahih International, translate it as “approved.” I say, five translators have done a real disservice. Because “there shall be no coercion in matters of faith”
(2:256).
The word “chosen” implies very strongly that this is a decision that has been made for you that you must follow. However, the word “approved” means that you have been told that this has the blessings of Allah. For example, “I have chosen this apple for you” is different than “I have approved this apple for you.” In the first example, I must take the apple because it has been chosen for me. I must obey. In the second example, I know with certainty that this apple is good for me because it has been approved. I can then make my own decision as the Qur’an (2:256). Mistranslations have changed the world.
Do you take Luke’s version of the Lord’s Supper as evidence that although he was a fan of Paul (as seen in Acts), he either didn’t understand Paul’s doctrine or disagreed with it? Is this a piece of evidence that the author was not really a companion of Paul?
For me the answer is yes and yes.
“doctrine of atonement into a book that originally did not have it.” Atonement not in. Likely Jesus was saved by God.
Mark14: 36 “Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt.” Meaning :- God can save Jesus; Please save me; decisive of them all “not what I will but what you will.” Jesus submitted his will to the will of God for best decision.
John8: 29 “And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone,” HOW CAN ANYONE CRUCIFY JESUS WHEN GOD IS WITH JESUS?
John16: 4-5 “But NOW I am going to him who sent me;” John 16:10 “I go to the Father, and you will see me no more;”
Luke22:43 “Appeared an angel, strengthening him(Jesus).” Angel, preparation to lift Jesus, ascension.
John17: 3-4 “I glorified thee, having accomplished the work which thou gave me to do” Jesus completed all his assignments, absolutely nothing to do with atonement, crucifixion, resurrection.
Jesus’s departure for the ascension even before the trial. John16: 4-5 “But NOW I am going to him who sent me;” NOW. NOW. John16:10 “ you will see me no more;”
Dr. Ehrman – this challenge of selecting the best text to translate – it seems like it would apply to most ancient writings to some degree or another. But then the texts of the NT were essential to even small communities of a rapidly growing religion. So it seems like you’d need significantly more copies of the NT texts than – for example – the works of contemporary philosophers and scholars. More copies would mean more opportunities for changes to occur, whether by accident or on purpose.
Is that right – to your knowledge – is the New Testament a standout among ancient writings in terms of how many versions, and scraps of versions exist for the different texts?
Yes. Far more many copies and versions, and as a result, far more variant readings.
Re: What most translators do is use a Greek edition that is based on a careful consideration of what the various manuscripts say at every point…
Pardon me if this question seems hopelessly naïve but why do Greek scholars go through such an exercise in the first place? I don’t mean the act of translation but the act of combining “what the various manuscripts say” into a single manuscript that claims to be a translation but has no direct analogue to any single ancient manuscript that actually exists. Wouldn’t it be better to directly translate all the individual manuscripts and indicate the textual problems in each through notes and commentaries? Aren’t scholars helping sustain the illusion that such a book as THE BIBLE exists when what actually exists are manuscripts, plural?
Thanks!
It’s because they want to figure out what the original authors wrote, and given the fact that no one manuscript is free from error (but instead has many mistakes), they apply their analysis to figure out case by case what the text originally said, rather than choose one manuscript. That’s how the texts of a lot of ancient books are presented.
Dr. Ehrman, it may help to look at rituals/lifestyle that transplanted east of the Jordan for translation clues, too.
Like in King Aretas IV Loving Father’s Kingdom (😊 Philopatris’ cool translation).
1. Mixed-herd/single herd — so like the olive oil/sesame oil line in the Levant, or Europe’s butter/olive oil line, there’s a goats-and-sheep/goats *or* sheep line for the Mediterraneany Levant.
Galilee and Nabataea are Team Mixed-Herd.
2. In 2003, archaeologists re-classified a front-and-center structure of Petra as an enormous pool for a “public immersion ritual”. Further excavation had found hydraulics, etc.
Surrounding it are ‘transplanting pots’ used in Israel & Rome, for the garden. Herodian layout:
https://www.academia.edu/857950/Planting_pots_at_Petra_a_preliminary_study_of_ollae_perforatae_at_the_Petra_Garden_Pool_Complex_and_at_theGreat_Temple?utm_source=pocket_mylist
3. They also discovered niiice rooms beneath Loving Father’s building, Khazneh. And a um, “secret staircase” — archaeology words — leading to them. In use in First Century CE:
https://universes.art/en/art-destinations/jordan/petra/al-khazneh/older-graves?utm_source=pocket_mylist
Also surprised that Nabataeans apparently were ‘king-making’ since before Hasmonean times. Per Josephus, King Herod Antipater had his kids staying at King Areta II’s house:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipater_the_Idumaean
Hmm 🙂
Q1. Why does Classical Era Petra stop and start on a dime with the time circumscribed in the Gospels? Forget mystery school, this is a mystery kingdom.
Q2. Have you considered writing a post on translations of the Nabataean scrolls found at Qumran?
I’m not sure what you mean about Nabatean scrolls off the top of my head. Which scrolls are you referring to?
continuing my prior comment 😃
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/languages-and-scripts?locale=en_US
“Nabatean Aramaic – Used in the Arabian kingdom of Nabatea (east and south of Judea) from the beginning of the 3rd century bce, Nabatean Aramaic incorporated Arabic features, especially vocabulary. Examples can be seen in certain Nahal Hever documents and the Seiyal Collection.”
Btw, if you look at a study of the Nabataean abjad, the number 4 has an alt way it can be depicted — a cross ❌
PDF alert:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2010/10473-n3969-nabataean.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiOyeus-cXzAhWwJDQIHcjACqEQFnoECBcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2dx5qjfIgYynxEd278caGC&utm_source=pocket_mylist
I’m aware of patternicity, but symbolism might make some sense from their side?
Revelations 1:15
“His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace”
Is that a word salad translation of a scribe’s compound word of frankincense + bronze? æ is bronze’s symbol.
They are a ligature-loving people. Nabatæan is their name. Frankincense is their game.
“Arabic features” might be saying Arabicized. There are no genetic studies I’ve found.
My guess is they were mixed from traveling:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/history/article/dna-from-biblical-canaanites-lives-modern-arabs-jews
Example: Celtic Britons are not Celts, just briefly ruled by Celts.
So Gaelic is Celticized, until Londinium’s founding ~44 BCE brings Latin.
But Roman walls means that Germanic Danelaw-Anglish instead becomes the base for common English, starting ~900 BCE
I think there is a difference between ‘translation’, in which the meaning of a text is presented in another language and the process you are describing here. What you are describing here is not only translation but translation following an earlier a process of selection of texts for translation. When translations in the EU or UN translate the identify the text to be translated by simply being given it. There is no ‘text selection’.
Someone has to give them the text. In the modern world it’s no problem. You just record what someone is saying, or translate as they speak. But with written texts before printing (or actually after) you first have to figure out what hte author wrote, especially if you have multiple manuscxripts that differ from one another. So establishing the text has to be prior to translating it.
Dr. Ehrman! 😃
“Aramaic (including Nabatean)”
Quotelet from the official Dead Sea Scrolls site of the Israeli Antiquities Authority:
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/?locale=en_US
They say that some of the Qumran sectarian scrolls are written in the *Nabataean North Aramaic dialect.* towards the bottom of the Languages section.
The parallels with Jesus’ ministry (and the Essenes) with Nabataea are super simple:
Revelations 12:14
“But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle so that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time.”
Do you think Lady Liberty is a god? Prolly not.
Dusares, Lord Heaven, is the eagle that’s the Nabataean *emblem*. Aka Kingdom of Heaven of Philopatris, who has the disagreement with Anti-pas.
I mean I just had an earthquake sending the last comment then my Internet went out for 2 days, but
I meditated and it’s good to say this 😅
If I correspond to Cayce’s past lives lol (who knows) I was one of the rares that incarnated after the Sons of Men got fixated in the “MMORPG” (dense reality) to remind that we also exist outside of narrow space-time. Like the Google “time-crystal” does, haha:
https://www.livescience.com/google-invents-time-crystal
🤷♀️
Ah, right. THese are Aramaic. Yes, they’ve all been translated.
An unrelated question:
Why is Eusebius thought to not be a reliable historian?
As with many of the early church fathers, you can check what he says about a person with other sources — including the person’s writings themselves — and evaluate how closely he approximates what appears to have ahppened or said. Eusebius certainly expresses things according to his own biases, as, well, most historians did! the trick is figuring out those biases so you can evaluate his claims.
Mark14: 34 “My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death:”
“Jesus said, Abba, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt.”
1.Jesus was of “exceeding sorrowful”. Surely, he did not want his enemies to assassinate him.
2.Jesus expressed in complete humility, surrendered to God, putting his forehead on the ground, prayed like the way Muslims perform their daily prayer where 2 legs, 2 knees, 2 palms, forehead and nose touches the ground in downright obedience and submission of his will to God. Such a gesture is the closest a man can get to God.
3.Meaning of this best prayer:- God can save me; Please save me (Jesus); and the most decisive of them all “not what I will but what you will.” Jesus was submitting his will to the will of God. It’s a highly significant, recommended Muslim prayer described as “TAWAKALLAH” meaning: surrender all to God for the best solution.
4.Jesus’s prayer was officially accepted when the angel visited him “from heaven, strengthening him.”
5.“Strengthening him” angel’s functions to get Jesus ready the necessary requisite for the take off, ascension, together with that angel. Ascension before Betrayal.
Great points.
I was actually looking for Jesus’ preparation program.
Luke 22:43
“An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.”
Mathew 9:13
“But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice…” – Jesus
Hosea 6:6
“I want you to show love, not offer sacrifices. I want you to know me more than I want burnt offerings.”
And guess what happens in AD 70 when the riots finally tumble Jerusalem and the Second Temple?
“Referring to a passage in the Book of Hosea, ‘I desired mercy, and not sacrifice,’ he helped persuade the council to replace animal sacrifice with prayer, a practice that continues in today’s worship services; eventually Rabbinic Judaism emerged from the council’s conclusions.”
That’s former Sanhedrin, first official Rabbi, and originator of Rabbinical Judaism — Pharisee Yohannan Ben Zakkai:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yohanan_ben_Zakkai
So the philosophical differences between Essenes & everybody (or Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah) seem to revolve around kindness.
I do think that Paul, tho initially mutually opposed to The Way, genuinely converted. As they hoped ‘the Fig Tree not in season’ would.
Paul got parts of Jesus’ message right, (positivity). James got other parts right.
I just attribute this to James and Jesus having different physical abbas
“Why then did Jesus die, according to Luke, if not for atonement. It’s a long story. I may tell it in a later post.”
That’s a good question and I hope you will address it in some detail eventually. I guess the proper question would be, if Jesus thought he was going to die for some purpose, then what would Jesus have imagined that purpose to be? And would it have had anything at all to do with atonement as later Christians have imagined?
It’s been my understanding that the Jews of that day had no original sin doctrine, and did not see humans as cursed with some sort of primal sin, and so an atoning sacrifice would make no sense in that context.
Short story: his death was planned by God because he was the final prophet to be sent. Salvation comes when people realize they’ve killed God’s holy one, and so they repent. It is repentance that leads then to forgiveness.
What do you think was the significance of “this is my body” in the shorter passage?
My body is about to be broken just like this bread has been.
“Nowhere else in these entire two volumes is Jesus’ death ‘for’ others.”
Thank you.
There is a simple explanation (that a scribe might have added, sure).
Nabataeans used a sequence of cups at mealtimes!
https://www.jstor.org/stable/506637
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/325915
Dr. Ehrman, what is the explanation for why Jesus and his big crowd are never mentioned enjoying olive oil? Just like Europe has the butter/olive oil line — that area had an olive oil/sesame oil one.
Athenodoros of Tarsus visits the Nabataean Kingdom 63-50 BC, and relays to Strabo that Nabataeans use cup sequences.
And they use sesame oil, not olive oil.
How did an olive grove work out for dude?
So in the Biblical history of Israelites, like John the Baptist and Elijah, there’s lots of escapey-ing to East of the Jordan — Damascus, Paella, (and I’d argue that Petra was built for the family that the maji found.)
So translations might be challenged by indirect speech because of Rome stuff.
Mathew 7:15
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.’
What is the most famous myth of Rome? Raised by wolves.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_and_Remus
What does a Good Shepherd protecc against?
Kittim in the DSS is just where they use their own myth, Genesis 10, for hand-waving at “Westerners”
“his death was planned by God because he was the final prophet to be sent.”
“his death was planned by God” Appreciate if you could furnish the verses whereby God literally said He had planned Jesus Death?
“he was the final prophet to be sent.” Kindly quote verses that Jesus had said “I am final prophet to be sent.”
Name the verses Jesus literally said “By killing me you will obtain salvation.?”
God accept repentance from anyone without the need to murder anyone. Killing an innocent man is, unacceptable, unholy, impermissible, committing gruesome, unforgivable sin. The people who commit the killing will be sent to Hell. Illogical salvation is derived from murder? Perhaps, Satan must have done a great job for people to accept unjustifiable murder as legal crime.
John16: 12-13 “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.”
“Spirit of truth”/ “man of truth” is the nickname of Prophet Muhammad who honored Jesus.
Most of these claims can be found by reading Luke carefully. On teh divine plan for his death, e.g.,. see Luke 24:26-27. The prophet language is found throughout the account, where Jesus is regularly portrayed as the prophet like Moses. The point I’m making is that Luke does NOT think Jesus’ death brings salvation.
OK, this is related to the topic but not directly: Do you consider the works originated from the Jesus Seminar to be of historical value in relation to Jesus himself? In other words, to what degree to you think they got anything ‘right’?
No, I have very firm disagreements with them about their methods and their conclusions, up and down the line. I discuss that a bit in book on teh historical Jesus.
Also the meal traditions of Jesus that apostles feel are unusual enough to point out:
— eating with ‘sinners’ (if you take that to be enemies)
— night meal needs 10+
I mean, these are traditions of nomadic people *east* of the River Jordan.
So you know how you can find everything on the Internet? I find no ‘Christian Discourse’ on the relationship of Aramaic-speaking peoples *east* of the river with The Way.
Even tho it’s in the Gospels.
King Herod ending his marriage alliance with Queen Phasaelis, a Nabataean princess before becoming *Queen of Galilee* and Perea (which seamlessly borders Nabataea) — marks the calendar start of downhill events.
Mark 8:15
Be careful,” Jesus warned them. “Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod.”
Luke 23, Jesus won’t do some sign on the spot for Herod, so gets sent back to Pilates.
Meanwhile, Herod’s now ex-wife has her Nabataean daddy King Aretas defeat him in AD 36. Rome mobilizes a response, but calls it off? GG Rome?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Antipas
Jesus was born ~AD 4. So, it’s contemporary for Christianity.
Sometimes there’s Christian discussion of Judea’s un-civil war — Northern Israelite rebels and the Southern Edomite ‘displacers’. So why doesnt The Discourse discuss each sides’ possible allies?
“Jesus is regularly portrayed as the prophet like Moses.” Just to share. It is certainly not true that Jesus is like Moses.
Unlike Moses, Jesus had no father, was born miraculously, rejected by his people, not married, no children, Moses possessed political power, Jesus never introduced any Law which Moses did, Moses die a natural death, buried not ascended.
Deut.18:18-19 can only apply to Prophet Muhammad. He was definitely like Moses with similar features as per above specifications.
“from among their brethren, like unto him” The Jews and Arabs are brethren from same father Abraham. Brethren refers to the Arabs.
During the time of Jesus, people were still waiting for that prophet. John 1:21“And they asked him, Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.”
After the time of Jesus, people were still waiting for that prophet. Acts 3:21-22 “Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things.” “For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.”
All the above evidence eliminates Jesus as the prophet like Moses.
You have probably addressed this before, but what about the matter of context? Few of us understand what life was like in the Roman world in 30 C.E. I know you have mentioned that the perversions that Paul wrote against were not the things that we think about today (e.g., people of that era had no concept of sexual orientation, only the sexual acts themselves).
I don’t know if there are problems with being able to translate certain words at all from the Greek in the New Testament, but I understand that there are words in the Hebrew scriptures that can’t be translated because they are used nowhere else.
For example, people can only speculate what the Urim and Thummim were (or, as I like to say, the Uma and Thurman). We know that they were somehow used to divine the will of God, but what form they took is unknown (one site speculates that they were gemstones that would light up in patterns that revealed God’s will, but something dice-like or maybe like the Magic 8-ball seems more likely to me).
We have enough problems understanding what the English in the KJV of the Bible means.
Yup, a thorough knowledge of what can be known about context is absolutely essential. One problem is that many translators don’t know as much as they should about it (as when they translate “homosexual”)
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think writings such as Isaiah 26:19 would have influenced Paul’s thinking?
I’d say Paul was very fond of Isaiah; it’s often hard to know which parts he was most influenced by if he doesn’t quote it.
Dr. Ehrman,
Isaiah 26:19: “Your dead shall live; their corpses shall rise.”
Do you think this had a role in Paul’s belief in a bodily resurrection?
May well have done. That sectdion of Isaiah — chs. 24-26 — ius often called the “little apocalypse,” because it embodies apocalypti views that became popular later and influenced the Jews of Paul’s day especially
Dr. Ehrman,
Before the belief in resurrection came about, what reason was there for ancient Israel to honor God? If life ended at the pit with Sheol, what was the point in obedience?
Because God was the Lord who made life possible and could make it good. That’s why virtually everyone worshiped God or the gods in teh ancient world. It was about having and enjoying life in the *present*. The idea that there had to be an afterlife to make worship of God important was quite unusual in the ancient world. It just seems weird to peole today because they are so used to thinking that religion is about heaven and hell. And *that* would have seemed weird to most people in antiquity (Greek, Roman, Jewish, Ancient Near Eastern, etc.)
Dr. Ehrman,
So Paul was, in a sense, ahead of his time so to speak with a philosophy such as, “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.” And “If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”’
I think these were his firm convictions, yes. I’m not sure how that makes him ahead of his time. Normally that phrase is reserved for someone who has views that are virtually unheard of then, but are standard now.