Loading...This is a continuation of a soon-to-be-compiled longer post for broader consumption on the New Testament. Now that I have described what the NT is, how it is structured and organized, and how it has come down to us, I get to one of the key issues: what does the New Testament tell us about the historical figure of Jesus himself?
**********************************************
There can be no doubt that Jesus of Nazareth has been the most influential person in the history of the world. The church founded on his name shaped the history of Western Civilization, and over two billion people worship him today. And yet, because of the nature of our sources, it is surprisingly difficult to know what he actually said and did.
Jesus is thought to have died around 30 CE. He is not referred to in any Greek or Roman sources of the first century, and only briefly in our major Jewish source of the period, the historian Josephus. The earliest Christian references are from the New Testament, but most of the twenty-seven books say nothing about his words and deeds.
The four Gospels are by far our most important sources and these certainly do contain significant historical information. But they are also theological reflections on the meaning of his life and death, less concerned to report bare facts than to reflect on their meaning. Historians work diligently to get behind these reflections to determine what Jesus actually said, did, and experienced.
It is clear that Jesus was …
It is easy to see the rest of this post. Join the blog! It’s easy, cheap, and valuable. And how many things in the world are *that*? Every penny goes to charity, so there is no downside.
Dr. Ehrman, I recently bought your book, “Lost Scriptures” and just started reading it. Are there any historical truths about Jesus in them we can believe besides the four Gospels? Great book, btw, I am glad you wrote it. Thanks Jim
There certainly could be *some* information in them — for example some of the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas may be authentic. But on the whole they are legendary. And fascinating!
And I still don’t believe it’s a proven fact Jesus made any such claim. It’s likely he was accused of having made that claim, but to argue that is decisive evidence means one believes the Romans had a good understanding of Jewish apocalyptic cults, which seems unlikely. Pilate was not known for being careful about who he crucified, as you have made clear. Jesus was clearly often ambiguous in his mode of self-expression. That is a recipe for miscarriage of justice. If you want to call it that. Not Proven.
Hello Dr. Ehrman,
Your post seems to start off saying there are not many sources for historical Jesus, yet later on you state that it is clear Jesus was raised in a small hamlet into a large family. However, is this perhaps too strong of a statement based on your introduction and on the lack of eye witness accounts? For me clear is 100% certainty and we don’t seem to have reached the standard to make such a claim.
I’m also curious to know if you think historical Jesus could have been an ordinary man with a messiah complex, whose message resonated with people of the time and since then. History is full of charismatic people who were great orators that were able to sway and inspire people. It is interesting to think if Jesus could have been such a man.
My last question/comment (although not specific to this post) is that the Bible and the early churches (and one could argue even some today) do not recognize many evils as forms of mental illness. Scientific advances are increasingly showing that many ‘evils’ are likely due to some brain abnormality and that one cannot always simply choose to be good nor are they ‘possessed’. I can understand that 2,000 years ago people could have thought you were possessed by the devil just like some thought the soul separated from the body when we sneezed. Yet, I am left wondering how the Bible, prophets, and others could be divinely inspired and yet be kept ignorant of this. Perhaps we were not yet ready for this knowledge at the time, but would there not be later prophets and divine influences to update our references such as the Bible? One could argue that a Bible – 2019 Edition could be in order.
Sorry for the long post. Thank you again for your posts.
There are very good reasons for thinking both things — and of course I didn’t have time to spell the reasons out in this short post. The question about whether he had a messianic complex is FAR more speculative: the other two things are fairly certain. As to the inspiration of the Bible — for that you would need to ask a theologian, not a simple historian like me!
A 100% certainty is pretty much impossible for a historian. The further back you go the scantier the records and you can only draw conclusions from the evidence you have. While we don’t have that level of certainty about Jesus’ background, we don’t have it for most of the people we study in late antiquity. Even royalty is not well enough documented for us to reach your 100% level of certainty.
With regard to this subject, for those new to this blog, I strongly recommend Ehrman’s “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium” and Schweitzer’s “The Quest of the Historical Jesus.”
Were the twelve truly 12 or is one of those numbers like 40 as in 40 days and forty nights?
Would twelve be a significant number? Would eleven or thirteen or fourteen in his inner circle have been “wrong” in some way?
Yes, I think it was an intentional number and there really were 12 (to coincide with the 12 tribes of Israel)
I believe you are right about the twelve. Actually, the number of tribes of Israel is a little dodgier. There are actually 14 different names of tribes given–Asher, Benjamin, Dan, Ephraim, Gad, Issachar, Judah, Joseph, Levi, Manasseh, Napthali, Reuben, Simeon, and Zebulun–but only 12 at a time appear on any list. I suspect it was important that the number always be 12, possibly because the number 12 comes from nature (12 months in one year).
But being raised from the dead shouldn’t lead to him being made lord of all – is it not better to say he claimed to be lord of all during his life and the belief in the resurrection confirmed this claim for the twelve?
Also Luke says the family would travel to Jerusalem for the passover each year – do you think this is reasonable? Jesus would get at least some exposure to the greek language if this was true.
Oh, I completely disagree on that one! Have you read my book How Jesus Becqme God? That’s where I explain it all. And no, I don’t think impoverished families in Galilee made annual treks to Jerusalem for passover. They could not have afforded it, in terms of either time or money.
Who said Jesus is “Lord of all”? His disciples didn’t make that claim in Matthew, and they were recording what he had taught them.
http://onediscipletoanother.org/id6.html
I’m wondering about 2 things:
First, if the Jews already had the practice of going to a mikvah, why did a person/prophet like John the Baptist have to begin a new practice of Baptism?
Second, if Jesus inner circle knew that either there was no tomb, or perhaps the body was moved to a different tomb, and if at the time of Jesus death no one thought of him as divine, why would anyone defend and repeat the stories of a bodily resurrection & ascension?
I heard somewhere, don’t remember where, that even the word “resurrection” did not mean a bodily reanimation of a dead body as it presumably does today. So where would such an unusual belief come from and why would such a belief, in the face of first hand witnesses disbelief, why/how would it “stick” and grow?
The ritual immersions of Judaism were for ceremonial impurity; John’s baptism was a different thing, a one time act of repentance in preparation for the coming Kingdom.
I don’t think the inner circle did know. They had fled to Galilee. And yes, resurrection was not like a Near Death Experience or resuscittion; it was a view that developed within Judaism some 200 yerars before Jesus. God wold bring bodies back to life, forever.
Interesting connection:
The Passover festival celebrated God’s destruction of Israel’s enemies in the days of Moses.
And Jesus likely taught that during or soon after his last Passover festival God would destroy his enemies for all time.
[B. E..] Jesus left his home, family, and work to be baptized …
————————
What work did Jesus leave in Nazareth? The carpenter’s, as you can read in Mark 6: 3 and Matthew 13:55?
It is very difficult to believe that Joseph, his father, had a carpentry in Nazareth – where Jesus helped him – an impoverished farmhouse with a small population, possibly less than a couple of hundred people, where the houses were roughly constructed and small , with very little use of wood, which was very scarce in the area.
The people of Nazareth were essentially farmers, so they needed space between the houses for livestock and their enclosures, as well as land for plants and orchards.
Those peasants would work with their own hands the few woods they needed, as they surely could not pay a professional carpenter.
Some defenders of the inerrancy of the Bible see no problem with this rather strange fact of a carpentry in a village of between 30 and 40 houses: Joseph and his son had clients in all the surrounding villages.
The nearest important city was Sepphoris. Several scholars have suggested that Jesus, while working as a craftsman in Nazareth, may have traveled to Sepphoris for work purposes, possibly with his father and brothers. Jesus does not seem to have visited Sepphoris during his public ministry and none of the sayings recorded in the Synoptic Gospels mention it.
The carpenter’s job of Jesus of Nazareth, although it is said in the NT, seems quite unlikely.
Carpenters were not making fine cabinetry. Someone had to make the yokes for oxen; gates; and so on. Farmers needed wood-made materials, and most everyone was a farmer. So that was the business. But nothing suggests it was a 40-hour job….
Out of curiosity… if you tried to reproduce one of the Gospels (your choice) from memory (in Greek), how well do you think you would do?
I couldn’t do it, just because i’ve never tried to memorize one of them in Greek. I can say a few lines here and there, but it would take a conscientious effort actually to memorize one of them.
Very nicely laid out!
I know you are with the majority view that holds Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher and that there is a minority of historians, including John Dominic Crossan, who disagree. have you ever debated this with Mr. Crossan. Tat’s a presentation I’d love to see.
No, I’ve never had a debate with one of the non-Apocalypticists, who appear to be a disappearing breed.
????
I’ve heard they don’t get resurrected.
In reading your blog, I always thought of the story pretty much as you mention. 1) The concept of establishing the kingdom of God here on earth was Jesus claim. When and who, and maybe .why, was it changed to going to heaven after death instead? Today, a lot of churches preach this latter version and I always believed the former as you pointed out. 2) Regarding Pilate and the trial of Jesus, when I read Mark 15 and Luke 23 for instance, I get a notion that Pilate wanted to release him and insisted to the Chief Priests he found nothing wrong with him and just punishment and release would be satisfactory So, where did you get the notion that Pilate saw him as a troublemaker and charged him with sedition? I do not see that. Is this your theological ( philosophical opinion) you deduce?
1) There’s no time, place, person we can pinpoint, but yes, as time went on the teaching came to be changed. I deal with the issue at some length in my forthcoming book on Heaven and Hell. 2) Yes indeed, as time went on Pilate becomes more and more innocent in the Christian tradition, precisely to take the blame off the “Romans” and to place it on the “Jews” I think I’ll post on that one!
“There can be no doubt that Jesus of Nazareth has been the most influential person in the history of the world.”
Actually, there is considerable doubt about this, as witnessed by Michael H. Hart’s “The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History”, which does *not* give Jesus first place. It would be more accurate to write that he was “one of the most” influential persons.
Sorry, I completely disagree. Name someone more important today. (With two billion people worshiping him, and billions of others affected by the tradition founded in his name). Or in 1920. Or in 1220. Or in 620. Etc.
Well, Hart’s choice for number one was the Prophet Muhammad, due to the unprecedented success and impact of his career in both secular and religious aspects of life.
One of his reasons for *not* choosing Jesus as number one was that Paul had an impact on Christianity not much less than that of Jesus; consider, in particular, the worship of Jesus in Christianity, which is arguably not what the monotheistic Jewish Galilean Jesus had in mind at all.
By contrast, the Prophet’s influence on his religion is not comparable to that of anyone among his followers.
Yes, that is a common view of Paul. But I disagree with it. Even so, I don’t think there’s any comparison between the secular and religious impact of Jesus and Mohammed. Think, well, Roman Empire. Middle Ages. Renaissance. Reformation. Enlightenment. Western dominance. Etc. etc. etc.
Yes, but that is arguable. You mention say the Renaissance and Reformation. But the three most technologically and scientifically advanced empires in 1600 were the Ottomans, the Mughals, and Safavid Iran. So I think it’s not a slam-dunk.
>> Roman Empire. Middle Ages. Renaissance. Reformation. Enlightenment. Western dominance. Etc. etc. etc.
If I may prof, if i think of the above, I think Philip II of Macedonia, Alexander The Great, Thales, Plato, Aristotle.
Yup, I completely agree. Though, of course, none of them is worshiped by 2 billion people!
Dr. Ehrman,
Why is Paul not considered a Jewish source of the 1st century? Did Paul think he was starting a new religion? If not, then why is he not considered a Jewish source?
Thanks, Jay
I meant Jewish source written by someone who was not a follower of Jesus.
I like how you put this in a blog post. I’d like to see a blog debate between you and an evangelical scholar about whether or not Jesus resurrected and was trulyGod. I’d also like to see a live debate on those topics specifically with your most recently developed views.
I have a number of debates on the topic on my Youtube channel, if you’re interested (and think some of them are on the blog as well).
Oh yes. I think I’ve seen about 90 percent of them. I’m subscribed to the channel. All great. I’d like to see a scholar(s) challenge you on your views in How Jesus became God and your responses (I have read how God became Jesus)
Hey Bart. I’m going to go back to the Ehrman Bird debate. I saw that one before. I’ll get back to you after rewatching it. I would like to see a blog response by you to Birds book.
I rewatched it. Very good. I think it would be interesting to create two blog topics, a summary rebuttal to Birds book and a summary rebuttal to Licona, or simply the view, that Jesus resurrected.
Pretty much sums it up. Thank you for doing that. This will be my Christmas card this year.
You say Josephus is the only one to mention Jesus and only briefly and that there are no Greek or Roman sources. What about the Gospel of Nicodemus, also called the Acts of Pontius Pilate. This is the real time proceedings of the trial conducted by Pilate. Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin and would have been present for the trial. He may even have been the recording secretary although that was probably left to the Scribes. These and other real time documents would have been the ‘Source Q’ that the New Testament writers used.
The Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate, as it has come down to us, goes back to the fourth century, though it is possible that the account is based on an earlier account of the second century. I provide a fresh translation of it, along with an introduction, in my book (done with Zlatko Plese) called The Other Gospels. It is definitely not a first-century source.
Fascinating to have it laid out like that. Just a quibble, then. Can we really say that the historical Jesus was all that influential? Weren’t the real innovations that shaped the West creations of his followers, i.e., Mark’s suffering Messiah and Paul’s divine savior? Isn’t the irony that it was only by obscuring Jesus’ message that the Church was able to prosper?
Without the historical Jesus we would not have had the later understandings of Jesus. These transformed the world in a way unlike anything else, in history. So without the historical Jesus, our entire civilizatoin would be incalculably different.
Dr. Ehrman, when you say the enemies of God would be “annihilated,” do you mean just killed—deprived of physical life in this world—or do you mean they would have no longer have an existence of any kind in any form in any realm?
Yes, I mean annihilated out of existence. They would cease to be. I argue this in my forthcoming book on Heaven and Hell.
I will have to read that when it comes out. I know it’s a view held by many, but I disagree because of what is said in the biblical references and because it is inconsistent with what I see is a philosophy of spirit-body-life. Maybe you’ll write a post to coincide with the release of the book?
Looking forward to the book. Do you think some NT authors hold an annihilation view and others a resurrect-to-punish view? I would imagine that would make for a tricky apologetic harmonization.
I’d say that Jesus and Paul had a resurrect-to-punish-by-annihilation view!
Great post, Bart. Interestingly though, there has been some pushback to your initial point. In historian Michael Hart’s book “The 100: a Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History,” he lists Jesus third. Isaac Newton gets the number two spot, because of the enormous influence the Scientific Revolution has had on the natural world and our lives individually. Muhammad gets top honors, because Hart observes he *single-handedly* founded a religion which today has 1.8 billion followers. There are slightly more Christians of course, and Western Civilization has been dominated by Christianity, but he feels the credit for this must be divided between Jesus and St. Paul, who did all the heavy lifting of founding a church. He also feels we ignore many of Jesus’s central teachings, like turning the other cheek.
Of course lists like these are the epitome of “Great Men” history, and highly speculative. But when the book was written, in 1978, the West wasn’t paying much attention to Islam. We are now. We also didn’t carry smartphones in our pockets with access to all the world’s knowledge, nor did anyone imagine Artificial Intelligence and its scary unknowns right around the corner. So in hindsight Hart seems eerily vindicated in his top two picks.
Yes, I know, but I completely disagree. Name someone more important today. (With two billion people worshiping him, and billions of others affected by the tradition founded in his name). Or in 1920. Or in 1220. Or in 620. Etc. Islam would not have existed (at least in the way it did) without Christianity; and the Enlightenment is unthinkable without the middle ages and the middle ages are unthinkable without Jesus.
Those holding the true knowledge regarding origins of religious myths all through history, are those who are called mystics, spiritualists — of the metaphysical. The only real mystery is how the Western Church has succeeded in convincing the populations to avoid this information that in present times is readily available in the metaphysical section of any major bookstore.
There is enough information about Jesus to see that he was of this mindset. We see many people of science and mysticism damning the teachings of the Church and of Paul and others of a more dogmatic slant. But few actually condemn Jesus. It is because the true knowledge (wisdom-knowledge) is apparent in some of his teachings.
The world is a mental construct, we evolved not from dead physical matter but from out of a more fluidic dream state. there are many teachers of the philosophy, from ancient Eastern religion founders, to modern ones like Deepak Chopra,and many Indian gurus, philosophers and such. Carlos Castaneda, Richard Bach, even new-ago wackos like Ran Das. All say the same thing. The world is a mental construct. The “physical world” is a creation of the mind, and absent the mental creation, the word “physical” would not likely even be in our vocabulary.
But there are bigger things happening in the Western world that the West little understands. The great technological explosion is a spiritual explosion too, and this will be the West’s saving grace.
“It is clear that Jesus was raised in a small hamlet, Nazareth”
“We do know that as an adult (around 30 CE?) Jesus left Nazareth”
“Jesus left his home, family, and work to be baptized by John, and almost certainly became his follower.”
You claim to know these things Ad Nazorean (by the Way, “almost” and “certainly” don’t really go together).
Compare to:
“The Gospels contain numerous accounts of great miracles that he did: healing the sick, casting out demons, controlling the forces of natures, and raising the dead.”
Why no opinion here as to historicity (rhetorical, not my one question). Isn’t it clear, certain and don’t we know that none of this is historical? [one question]I know you don’t like to confess that the impossible is impossible, but can’t you still say it’s more likely these things did not happen than all the things that you claim likely did happen?[/one question].
The first statements are historical claims about what happened; the other statement is only about what the Gospels “contain.” I put it that way because it is true, they do have those accounts. But I do not think the accounts are historical.
With Sepporis so close to Nazareth do you think it possible/probable that Jesus and his father would travel there for work? While there is no mention of this in the NT, does it not seem likely that such trips were made during Jesus’ childhood or youth? Work in Sepporis could have been an important source of income.
I think it is possible but highly improbable. My sense is that most rural folk then, like now, stayed put the whole time. If there work was in Sepphoris, they would have moved there instead of wasting hours every day walking. For me one of the most striking things is that Jesus never goes to Sepphoris in the Gospels; in fact it is never even mentioned in them.
it maybe the case (probably is the case) that
> Rumors had circulated that Jesus had declared he himself
>would be the new king once the Romans had been destroyed.
but it is hard to determine whether these ‘rumors’ have any more validity than the ‘rumor’ that a PC server owned by US company called CrowdSource located in Illinois somehow was transported to and hidden in Ukraine.
Now a childish person be he an insecure POTUS or Sanhedrin will unfortunately often take such ‘rumors’ and propagate them to anyone who will listen (roman governor or US electorate)
>[Jesus] ethical message was delivered within this apocalyptic context.
> in the future kingdom . . . there would be no injustice, SO they
> needed to help the outcast and oppressed now;
Though I will grant that Jesus believed you should help the oppressed and also that Jesus believed in the future kingdom there would be none oppressed, I can’t think of any any evidence that Jesus or any earlier prophet implied the REASON for helping the oppressed.
Much more likely the reason Jesus preached helping the oppressed is because he understood God as the Parent loves and sympathizes with the oppressed. and he was teaching us to behave in a manner congruent with God’s wishes
see Matt 5:44
Why love your enemy?
Because in the future kingdom there will be no enemies?
No, not at all, rather that you may be sons of your Father in heaven . . .
“In the kingdom there would be no poverty, so the people of God needed to help the poor now; there would be no injustice, so they needed to help the outcast and oppressed now; there would be no illness, so they should tend to the sick now; there would be no suffering then, so they should help those in pain now.”
These seem like non-sequiturs. Why should the fact that there will be no poverty in the future kingdom mean we should help the poor now? And the same with the other aspects of illness and injustice.
And this view seems inconsistent with much of we read in the Gospels. Jesus praised the poor woman who gave all she had. If we were simply trying to make now like the coming kingdoms wouldn’t he have been preaching that the poor should start saving money?
Rather, if poverty is going to be erased soon then it shouldn’t matter what we do with out wealth. And that seems more in line with what his overall teachings are in the bible. What good is it to store up grain if you lose your soul?
If he only wanted the sick healed so that it would mirror the future kingdom wouldn’t he have healed everyone? Or in all the healings he did perform wouldn’t he at least once say “I healed this person so we will be more like the kingdom to come”? I think your analysis is incongruous with many gospel texts. I do agree there are passages that suggest Jesus is thinking the kingdom will come in the present time. But when you try to say all of his teachings that we should love each other are really just another aspect of his apocalyptic teaching, I think that is overstepping the texts.
The simpler answer is that Jesus taught a message of love as well as apocalypticism. Trying to subsume the message of love into the Apocalypticism seems unwarranted. If you have a blog/book where you make that case more in depth I would be interested.
Many ethicists teach the important of love so we can all get along in the long haul. My point is that Jesus did not see it that way. He did not think there was going to *be* a long haul. God was bringing his kingdom soon. Only those who were followers of God would be allowed in. Followers of God do what God wants. What God wants is evident from what the kingdom will be like. It will be all love an no hatred, suffering, or misery. And so, to enter the kingdom, people need to live by the ethics of the kingdom, loving others and relieving the suffering and misery of others.
good observation
” Followers of God do what God wants. ”
and in total agreement
” [Jesus’] ethical message was delivered within this ‘do what God wants’ context. People needed to reform how they lived precisely because ‘this is what God wants’. . . . For Jesus this meant living in ways the reflected the values of ‘what God wants’. ‘God wants there’ to be no poverty so the people of God needed to help the poor now; ‘God wants there’ to be no injustice, so they needed to help the outcast and oppressed now; ‘God wants there’ to be no illness , so they should tend to the sick now; ‘God wants’ no suffering then, so they should help those in pain now.”
personally I don’t get your need to insert his ‘apocalyptic’ viewpoint in-between what God wants and the way people should behave now, but I suppose this is your prerogative
If you don’t understand the context within which someone says something, you will be taking it out of context; and that is almost never a good thing.
> [Jesus’] ethical message was delivered within this
> apocalyptic context. People needed to reform how
> they lived PRECISELY because the kingdom was coming soon. . . .
> FOR JESUS, THIS MEANT living in ways the reflected the values
> of the future kingdom. In the kingdom there would be
> no poverty, SO the people of God needed to help the poor now;
>there would be no injustice, SO they needed to help the
> outcast and oppressed now;
> there would be no illness, SO they should tend to the sick now;
> there would be no suffering then, SO they should help those in
> pain now. Those who lived this way would enter the kingdom.
>Those who refused would be annihilated.
[CAPITALIZATION added]
I do not think you are subtly saying
“For Jesus, if the kingdom were NOT coming soon, it would not be necessary for his disciple to act ethically”, however by on several occasions making this comment, or similar, on the blog, it may be interpreted that you think the coming of the kingdom and avoiding damnation was Jesus’ primary motivation for his ethical ministry.
Is that the case?
I don’t think Jesus entertained that hypothetical.
Hi Bart,
Is there historical evidence that December 25th is, in fact, the true birthday of Jesus?
Thanks!
None at all.
Okay, then do we know why specifically December 25th was chosen to be designated as the birthday of Jesus ( as opposed to any other day of the year)? i.e. other historical Greek/Roman significance to December 25th?
Also, do we know when his real birthday was?
Thanks!
No one really knows why they settled on December 25. It is often said that it is because of an important Roman holiday celebrating the birth of the Sun God, but the dates don’t quite work. In any event, it wasn’t until the fourth century that it started to be celebrated then (in Western Christendom). IN the earliest centuries Christmas was not observed. No one was that much interested in when Jesus was born. We have no clue what the actual birthday would have been.
Bart- This is mind boggling! To my knowledge, only Jehovah’s Witnesses and some Quakers don’t celebrate Christmas. Are the Christian clergy (ministers, priests, pastors, bishops) aware of this minor little detail? One of the most celebrated, festive, fussed-over religious holidays in the Western world has no historical and/or scriptural backing. I’m baffled.
My sense is that the holiday is celebrating the fact that Jesus came into the world as a human; most pastors and theologians are not overly worried about what day of the year it was.
Re: your saying that Jesus “predicted that the temple itself was soon to be destroyed.” Isn’t it far more likely the the evangelists added this tidbit? And, in general, am I reading your post correctly? Are you really saying that the claims in your summary, even though they are gleaned entirely and exclusively from the Gospels (the “theological reflections” of the evangelists), represent what we can safely say we know about the historical Jesus?
It would be likely except for the fact that the prediction is found in so many independent accounts, so it looks like none of them could have invented it.
Do you believe that Jesus taught that the ‘Kingdom of God’ appears independent of any human response to God’s call ?
if so, is there any earlier scriptural basis for such an idea ?
if not, what kind of response would be required ? ( living ethically was Jesus seemed to encourage ?)
Absolutely. For Jesus the Kingdom of God would be like the Kingdom of Rome, only far far superior. Someone doesn’t have to have a personal respons to Rome in order for it to exist, thrive, and affect millions of people.
I just don’t see your analysis supported in the texts. Contrary to your view Jesus said his healing someone’s hand on the sabbath was doing good. Mark 3:1-6. He never said I am healing this person so he will be like he will be in the kingdom to come – without suffering/misery. You agree the gospels are full of healings. Did he ever say he is healing someone so that they will be like they will be in the kingdom to come without suffering? Did he not say we should take up our cross and suffer in this life?
It seems we can find lots of passages that contradict what you say. Jesus does not say that married people should divorce and no longer be married. But he does say that in the kingdom to come people will not be married.
“Followers of God do what God wants. What God wants is evident from what the kingdom will be like. It will be all love an no hatred, suffering, or misery. And so, to enter the kingdom, people need to live by the ethics of the kingdom, loving others and relieving the suffering and misery of others.”
I think you are putting the cart before the horse here. In John Jesus says he want us to love each other so our joy will be complete. Sure heaven is full of love and no suffering because God loves us and wants us to have joy. Heaven is a long haul.
You present it very mechanically as if the kingdom might as well have been full of suffering and then Jesus would have gone around causing leprosy, instead of healing it, and it wouldn’t matter. Is that your view?
Some ethicists teach that the reason we should love is for some long haul gain. I agree that is not quite the Christian view. Love involves immediate and long haul gains and love is a goal in itself. Faith in Jesus involves trusting love is itself a worthy goal.
You suggest Tompiccard is taking Jesus out of context by not having apocalyptic-ism subsume Christ’s message of love. Perhaps you are taking his apocalyptic-ism out of context by overly subordinating his message of love?
My view is that any discussoin of ancient ethics needs to be put in its appropriate context. When Homer, Plato, Epicurus, Leviticus, Ecclesiastes, Jesus, or Augustine urge “love” they simply don’t mean the same thing — either what it entails or why it is good. Yes, Jesus did believe love was the way to live. It was his top priority. That was because for him it is the nature of God. That’s why it will be the central feature of Jesus’ main emphasis: The coming kingdom of God. When Mark summarizes Jesus’ entire preaching message at the very outset, it was not “You need to love one another becuase we are all worthy beings.” It was “The time has been fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the good news.” Jesus certainly believed in love. But it was directly connected with his urgent declaration: the kingdom is coming and you need to prepare.
what is the difference ?
Ezekiel compared the mission of the prophet to that of watchman ?
the watchman sees an approaching army and asks citizens to grab swords
likewise the prophet sees an approaching catastrophe and says the listener should change their ways . . .
seems general prophetic mission whether Jesus or Ezekiel, not particularly “apocalyptic”
but the main point is that even
“The time has been fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the good news.”
means only Jesus had dual messages
1) kingdom is coming
2) change your lives
I don’t know if the former is more fundamental than the latter or the reverse, nor do I know why it matters one way or the other.
but your comment
> Jesus did believe love was the way to live.
>IT WAS HIS TOP PRIORITY.
>THAT WAS BECAUSE FOR HIM IT IS THE NATURE OF GOD.
seems to me you do recognize that the ‘ethical message’ trumps the ‘coming kingdom’ one
But the focus of the message was the Kingdom. Just look at the parables.
Hi!
According to the NT, some of the apostles of Jesus were ignorant, illiterate,
Besides Paul, could any of them be literate, able to write and read Aramaic or any other language?
I am also keenly interested in how much Jesus himself was educated, ie was he literate and how much?
I’m from Croatia where none of your books have been translated and I’m just following your lectures on the internet, so I haven’t come across this information yet.
In fact, in Serbia they translated “Misquoting Jesus”, which I found on the internet.
It seems unlikely that any of the twelve disciples could read or write. The vast majority of Jews in rural Galilee could not do so. There simply weren’t public schools. I also doubt very much if Jesus could write; it seems plausible he could read, but I’m not sure how he would have gotten the training.
Hi Bart,
Curious to know. What would make you change your mind and convince you to return to Christianity?
I don’t think one ever knows. It’s not the sort of thing where you say: If I see this particular miracle then I will *know*! I think the key is to remain open minded and constantly searching for the truth. And I think that’s true for everyone, even those who are fully confident that they have already arrived at the truth….
Hi jgapologist. I’ve compiled a list of definitive answers:
http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2017/04/what-would-convince-atheists-to-become.html?m=1
I would like to know which sayings attributed to Jesus were more likely actually said by him. Is there a reference that rates the sayings attributed to him on some scale, like most likely, likely, unlikely, certainly not saiid by him? For example, I believe Matthew, chapter 25, verses 31-46 were likely said by Jesus. The story of the woman about to be stoned to death until Jesus interceded and said “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” certainly was not said by Jesus. What about these and all the others?
Well, the only thing close to that is The Five Gospels, which gives a color-coated version of Jesus’ sayings based on the approximate likelihood he said them, in the editors’ opinion. My main problem with the book is that I think a very great many of their opinions are simply *wrong*. One of their goals was to assert that Jesus never used apocalyptic language. Uh…. I discuss many of the key sayings that I think go back to him in my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prpohet of the New Millennium.
Season’s Greetings, Bart. Wondering if I could ask for your opinion on a Jesus question not often discussed. The question is: do you think it possible, even likely, that one of the reasons Jesus had problems with his family and the local people who knew him was due to the fact that in calling his disciples, he took away the livelihoods from residents in an already impoverished region? By that I mean, how would Galilean families of sustenance farmers/fishermen feel towards a man (Jesus) who called away 12, able bodied men to follow him at the expense of their own family’s well being? We know Peter was married. Perhaps other disciples, as well? Also, though their ages are never given, it seems likely that Jesus called men younger than himself who, if not husbands, may well have been important income providers for their mothers and fathers. What would all those wives and parents have thought of Jesus? Might their animosity also explain some of Jesus’ harsh comments on loyalty to him rather than family? Appreciate any thoughts you may have on this.
Yes, I think that’s a possibility. In his own family, if he was the eldest son and his father had died and he left home to engage a teaching ministry, living by begging, then he left his mother and siblings with no means of support. And took away other men from the same situations. If the end of the world is coming next Thursday, that may be OK; but if it’s not, well, that’s a problem.
Yes…Avalos has a couple pages on this in The Bad Jesus called Heroic Disciples or Deadbeat Dads? pages 201-203
I’ve heard Hector say nice things about you in interviews “We need more Bart Ehrmans in the world”
Do you guys ever get a chance to chat ?
Have you read The Bad Jesus The Ethics of New Testament Ethics
If so what did you think of it ?
Thanks Bart !
No, we haven’t talked in years. But we taught togeter at UNC for a while. Haven’t read it.
Hello – I grew up in the church and in a biblically literate family, and while Schweitzer’s view of the apocalyptic Jesus was known, it was dismissed since it was perceived as inadequately explaining Jesus‘ moral teachings. (I have to say it that awkwardly because we didn’t actually read Schweitzer himself!). I find it fascinating that you note “Jesus was certainly a great moral teacher, but his ethical message was delivered within this apocalyptic context.” That is, the apocalyptic context is essential to understand the moral stance.
I see that you do address this in JAPNM, but I wonder if you could supply any additional context. This view that Jesus’ apocalypticism and moral teachings reinforce each other goes against the common caricature of contemporary apocalypticists: to note extreme examples, we can consider Jim Jones and David Koresh. In your book _Jesus Before the Gospels_, you have a lot of fun exploring contemporary examinations of oral tradition, memory, and eyewitness testimony, and use these as effective examples to demonstrate why the gospels are likely not reliable sources, but are indeed shaped to conform to various narratives.
Do you have any additional examples (they don’t have to be fun!) to help deepen our understanding of apocalyptic movements? That is, where else have we seen apocalyptic movements that also push for deeper moral insight? So beyond calls for purity, Jesus’ ethics push for empathy, connection, community. Have we seen other apocalyptic movements in recorded human history that also demonstrated such complex moral stances and moral developments? I’m guessing we have, but I just don’t know about them. Do you have any book recommendations that would further my understanding, here? Thank you in advance for any thoughts you might have.
(Note that I do not see Jesus’ moral teachings as “against” Judaism or “beyond” Judaism – rather, that like other innovative Jewish thinkers of his time, he also had nuanced understandings of the Torah, Writings, and Prophets. But they weren’t also apocalypticists. Or do I have Rabbi Akiva, etc., all wrong?)
I suppose an obvious place to turn would be the teachings of the Essenes and of the Pharisees — both were apocalyptic groups and insisted on a very high morality. I can’t think of any apocaylptic movements or persons in antiquity who used the imminent end as an excuse to be engage in immoral activity: it is always an incentive to shape up while there’s time and to live appropriately.
Apocalyptic movements are often purity movements, to my knowledge: most don’t have concern for the poor as an emphasis. And I have not otherwise read that the Pharisees were an apocalyptic movement – do you have a book (or more) to suggest to read in that regard? I am a bit afraid of wading into early pharisaical literature without a guide – to my knowledge, dating in this area is particularly tricky.
Do you think Jesus spoke Koine Greek (to converse with Gentiles) and Hebrew as well?
What language would Synagogue services in Galilee be held in (such as when Jesus went to Capernaum)?
No, I don’t think so. There weren’t any gentiles in nazareth and he never went to school to learn it. Synagogue services (and everything else) would have been in Aramaic.
Would he have been at least somewhat literate in Aramaic? Or would he have learned scripture only orally at Synagogue.
There doesn’t appear to have been much Aramaic literature to read; the point of reading, except for scholars and the upper classes, would probably have been the Scriptures.
Ok, no disrespect or sarcasm intended. You write that there was a person named Jesus, that he was born in a specific town, and his family was large. I’m worn looking for evidence. What are your sources for your bases in fact?
That would take too long for a comment on the blog! But I lay it out in my book Did Jesus Exist (and also in Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium)
Bart, are you saying that it’s impossible to read the-coming-of-the-kingdom-of-God story as allegorical? Jesus spoke allegorically all the time, so why not in this case? I realize that some (if not most) Christian churches today believe in the literal meaning, but that doesn’t prove anything.
Couldn’t the disciples have just missed the allegorical intention of the kingdom-of- God story? It’s like the bread and wine/body and blood idea. If the disciples believed in the literal body and blood idea, then it’s easy to see how they would believe in the literal coming-of-the-kingdom idea.
Finally, if we were to read the coming-of-the-kingdom story as allegorical, how would that change your view on the life of Jesus?
No, I don’t think it is impossible, just highly unlikely. That kind of language was frequently used by apocalyptic Jews, and so far as we can tell they really meant it.
Jesus wasn’t the messiah in the literal sense that the Jews at the time would have understood, either. But he was speaking their language in both cases (in the case of the messiah storyline and the kingdom of God storyline) I’m coming at this as a questioning believer, mind you, so I’m looking for plausible spiritual interpretations.
Also, I can see the value of a non-believing historian studying the Bible, but do you think that this un-belief has its disadvantages when drawing conclusions, as well? Not to suggest that there aren’t disadvantages for the believing biblical historian, but the non-believer can’t help but reduce everything they find to the ordinary divorced from the possibility of the mystical. Jesus wasn’t a miracle worker; he was like the other people of his time who were rumored to be miracle workers but weren’t. Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher just like the other apocalyptic preachers of his time. The conversion and testament of Paul and the belief of the apostles weren’t divinely or supernaturally inspired; they were false belief or a product of the time and place. Everything suggesting the divine, the spiritual or the extraordinary has to be reduced or dismissed.
If yo’re saying that those who do not believe in supernatural interventions into the natural order are disadvantaged because they can’t believe that supernatural interventions occur, I’d say it’s true that they can’t but I’m not sure why that is a particular disadvantage? It can be shown emperically to have become a huge advantage since the enlightenment when it came to the development of science and technology, and especially advances in medicine. You may be interested in reading The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science
by Michael Strevens. Pretty interesting!
I’m not a science or reason denier. I just think that science and the supernatural can and do co-exist.
All I was trying to say is that the biblical scholar who doesn’t believe in the possibility of the supernatural has a much narrower range of possible interpretations to work with, which isn’t a disadvantage for the scholar himself or for the atheist audience, granted, but it can be frustrating for the believing audience. And, I think you would acknowledge that man has no way of knowing anything for sure about the existence (or lack thereof) of God.
Anyway, I still appreciate and love reading your work, Bart! When something bible-related doesn’t make sense to me, I’m always interested in hearing your take. Thank you very much for your reply!
Yes, I get your view and appreciate it. I should stress though that not being able to show that something cannot be established as having happened using historical criteria is not the same thing as saying that the thing didn’t happen. It’s just you cannot use historical methods to show it happened.
That’s true for 99% of all our knowledge: historical evidence doesn’t help. Historical evidence can’t solve linear equations, establish the laws of thermodynamics, determine if Tennyson was a better poet than Browning, prove that I loved my dog, or help me fix the leak in the kitchen last week.
It may be true that all these things involve the past in one way or another (even linear equations, since at some point humans developed and solved them), but “historical criteria” have no access to them. So too with God and claims about God, even about things God (or the gods, or the devil, or other evil forces in the world) allegedly “did.” If he/they did them, we don’t have access to them on the same grounds we have basis for establishing what FDR did.
That also means that you cannot use history to establish claims *against* God and his alleged activities. If something cannot, in theory or practice, be historically proved, it also cannot, in theory or practice, be historically disproved.
I see your point. Except that most of your conclusions (correct me if I’m wrong) are based on the idea that that the supernatural/spiritual claims made in the Bible are false, not just that they can’t be proven. Your interpretations don’t seem to leave an opening for the possibility of the extraordinary.
Thank you, Bart. Have a lovely day!
I’m not sure which interpretations you mean. When I talk about what probably happened in the past, it is not based on my metaphysical views but on how we establish historical probabilities.