Here I continue my reflections on how stories about Jesus were floating around the Mediterranean world *before* the Gospel writers wrote their accounts (based on these stories). I pick up here with the final paragraph of yesterday’s post, again taken from my book Jesus Before the Gospels (HarperOne, 2016).
******************************
In other words, a story does not have to be written in the newspaper or broadcast on the evening news or even on modern social media to get around, very widely and very quickly. Moreover, the vast majority of the people telling the story – just within three days – are people who were not eyewitnesses and did not get their information from eyewitnesses. What do you suppose happens to stories when they are told, remembered, retold, and then remembered again, just within three days? Or three years? Or, as in the case of Jesus, 40-65 years? How many changes would be made in them?
Thanks, Bart. To your point. I was an eyewitness to an accident between a motorcyclist and a deer. The rider was OK. The deer, less so. Anyway, I helped the shaken rider up and called an ambulance. Later, I shared the story with my wife and a few friends. Imagine my surprise when, three days later at a dinner party, I overheard my wife retelling the tale, but with glaring – if innocent – alterations. And that was over a mere 72 hours. Can’t wait to hear how it sounds next year!
Well, I hope every one remembers that you saved his life and revived the deer and got it into rehab…..
Fascinating story!
“They obviously could not convert anyone simply by saying “believe in Jesus.” Jesus who? No one is going to become a follower of a person they know absolutely nothing about. And so Christian missionaries were obviously, and necessarily, telling stories about Jesus. How else would someone decide to believe in him?”
Yessssss !
But …
How is it that we can hardly find any story, saying or whatever about Jesus in Paul’s letters?
It is said that people in Paul’s churches already knew stories about Jesus because of Paul (or other apostles) preaching so there was no need to repeat it, but in Phill 3:1 Paul clearly states that “It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you.” Even though apparently nobody in any Paul church had any question about Jesus for Paul to address in his letters.
The interest in Jesus’ life changed radically about a decade or so after Paul’s death.
Yup, that’s a major question. The online course I did recently goes into considerable length trying to look into the possible answers.
He seems to have leaned pretty hard into the resurrection miracle without using any others.
I think using others would have raised the profile of those who were actually there (James,Peter) reducing his own profile.
“There was a massive parting of the ways.”
That seems overblown. If the accounts of eating grain on the sabbath or eating with unwashed hands or providing comfort to the woman with the bleeding disorder are to be believed, Peter was likely present at these sorts of occasions as Jesus’ apostle, and as much of a sinner against the strict interpretation of the Mosaic Law as anyone else involved.
Later they sought to draw converts, Paul among the Gentiles, and Peter among the Jews, who were mindful of the law and even the strict interpretations of the Pharisees. Paul probably wanted to appear respectful of the law among those he sought to influence.
They probably spoke about this, but we only have the account of Paul, who had a history as a finger-wagging Pharisee himself, and self-promoter (“I shall go on boasting”), so who knows what actually was said during the encounter. But probably not a “massive parting of ways” unless either party was personally offensive, given that with his history, Peter surely must have realized his own hypocrisy and its purpose.
Hello, Dr Ehrman.
I know you don’t believe in the empty tomb. Same as me. Why do you think the Church of the Holy Sepulchre became identified with the tomb of Jesus?
Is it just Constantine trying to legitimize his reign by claiming to find Jesus tomb. And Eusebius trying to legitimize Constantine. Or is it an earlier tradition.
Three hundred years they had to pick a place….
Unrelated.
Dr. Bart: l would appreciate your response about interpolation. Mk.8:29,30;Lk.9:20,21;
Mt.16:16,20, are the same. Is the”keys to the kingdom” interpolated? Also Mt.28:19, “baptizing them in the name of the F,S, and
HS.” Jesus and the baptizer felt the end was very soon, so is Mt. 24:14 and similar verses also interpolated?
It depends on what you mean by “interpolated.” Do you mean “are these additions to the story made by Matthew (or by storytellers he had heard? Yes, almost certainly. (Normally “interpolation” refers to a change of the text made by a later copyist but *before* any of our surviving manuscripts were produced. I don’t think there’s any evidence of *that* here. These appear to be originally part of Matthew)
You believe Paul’s biggest contribution is that the gospel was accessible to the gentiles. Do you think the earliest disciples believed and taught that, even though the gospels give that commission
Paul claims he convinced them, and I think that’s probably right — though they clearly interpreted the significance of this view differently for how Jews and gentiles were to relate to one another in the church (see Galatians 2).
“Historical kernel” – What do you believe is the authors agenda while writing the book of acts during that historical timeframe?
His overall agenda? He had a large one, including such things as: many thousands converted right off the bat: the Spirit was the driving force for the conversion; the Spirit’s presence was seen in fantastic, convincing miracles; the apostles all saw eye to eye on all important issues; the conversion of gentiles was in fulfilment of God’s promises; nothing could stop the mission; etc. etc.
Why was Paul so successful? (1) Paul’s natural ability to learn, retain, and recite the stories of Jesus he learned, (2) his status as Roman citizen which allowed him to travel freely and spread these teachings, and (3) the influx of gentiles as a captive audience in the shadow of Empire that were looking for worldviews that transcended Rome’s hierarchy. Peter and other eyewitnesses were probably not literate, probably not the best orators, and were probably not prepared to preach to gentiles in other parts of the Empire. Paul shows us one example of how Jesus’ life and teachings spread wide and far, and doing so all before the Gospels were written. I’m now more interested in the conflicts during this time amongst those spreading the stories. The passage from Galatians seems to provide some insights in the dispute between Peter and Paul. Were there others with gifts and privileges like Paul? Also, could we say an eyewitness (e.g. Peter) was a convert? It’s almost like two different religions: consoling Christ’s followers immediately after the events at Golgotha, and the gentiles who wanted to transcend like Christ.
Paul wrote the language that the Roman Cardinals was best able to accept as true. That’s why.
Professor Elaine Pagels [The Gnostic Gospels] said he was the most successful in opening new churches …
In his letter to the Romans, Paul mentioned he has not visited Rome. What makes us so certain he NEVER went to Rome? Doesn’t the possibility exist that he could have gone to Rome months or years after writting the letter?
Yes, that’s the traditional view, and is what is found in the book of Acts.
Do you think Paul believed or taught that Jesus always existed in the beginning with God as it’s taught in the doctrine of the trinity? Do you think Paul would agree with the doctrine of the trinity?
No, he would not have imagined the later doctrine. He appears to have thought that Jesus was a supernatural being comparable to a great angel prior to coming to earth.
I think the real force behind the spread of Christianity was its humanity towards the poor, particularly the slaves. For the first time in history, slaves were regarded as human beings, not just property. God “loves us all” meant that all men were equal in the eyes of God. The kings and emperors were no more loved by God than the lowest slave in the empire. And when you realize that the slave population made up 1/3 to 1/2 the empire, it is evident that the adoption of Christianity by slaves was basically almost an automatic “triumph” in a very short time. And once the slaves had gotten their humanity, they were not going to give it up, and the persecutions only made them more determined. I think Constantine’s support and eventual conversion came more from a political realization that Rome could not withstand another slave revolt and finally decided “if you can’t beat them, join them”. The real challenge then became getting the wealthy Romans, particularly the military, to join what had been regarded as a “poor man’s” religion.