Loading...I’m starting to think there must be a better way to explain to laypeople – and even to scholars – the best way we can show what the historical Jesus himself said and did. Since I was a graduate student I have done what every other budding New Testament scholar was doing: name the “criteria” that are used to show which elements of the Gospels are legendary and which are historical, explain their logic, justify them, and then use them. Now I’m starting to think that just ain’t the way to go.
In case you don’t know, scholars use a set of criteria to decide what is authentic to the life of Jesus. The reason we need to do that is that we don’t have any audio or video recordings of his life, or stenographic accounts of his teachings, or highly reliable, fully documented, authoritative records of his activities. What we have are accounts written decades later (30-65 years later, at best), by people who did not know him, living in different parts of the world from him, speaking a different language, reporting stories that had been circulating by word of mouth year after year after year, throughout enormous stretches of territory, almost always being told by people who also did not know him, hear him, or see him, but who were retelling stories they themselves had heard from others who had heard them from others. Yikes.
But despite the “yikes,” none of that would necessarily mean that the four NT Gospels are more legendary than historical. The bigger problem is that – with that as background reality – the four accounts we have are inconsistent with one another, sometimes completely contradictory, often in little ways and sometimes in seriously important ways. Moreover, not only are some of the stories at odds in many places, they are also, in some instances, completely contrary to what we know from the historical record, or, when pressed hard, simply don’t make sense. On the other hand, there are also a lot of notable consistencies, regularly reported sayings and events, and many accounts that fit perfectly well into a Galilean and Jerusalem context in the late 20s CE.
I’m not going to demonstrate all that here – I’ve talked a lot about it in my books (e.g., Jesus Interrupted, Jesus Before the Gospels, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, etc.). In those books I’ve also explained how scholars deal with the various problems we encounter in our source by explaining the “criteria” (which I’ll describe in a moment). And I’m about ready to give up the ghost on that one. Not on using these criteria, but on naming them and justifying their names.
My reason for thinking it is time to try something different is that
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
In case you’re not familiar with all this Jesus criteria-talk (and for the record) I’m referring to the Criterion of Multiple Attestation; the Criterion of Dissimilarity, and the Criterion of Contextual Credibility. These are just the ones I use; other criteria often mentioned in the scholarship are the Criterion of Embarrassment; the Criterion of Coherence; the Criterion of Aramaisms; etc. All of these are rather unfamiliar technical terms that have to be explained just to have them make sense. (And no, I’m not going to define them here! That’ll just perpetuate the problem). But naming, explaining, and justifying them – as a procedure – simply raises all sorts of questions. Why have you come up with these? Why not invent others? And why are you Jesus scholars just comin’ up with your own rules? THAT don’t make sense!
Anyway, I’ve stuck with the criteria for a very long time. I was just counting this morning. I started studying and explaining them to others 43 years ago; I started teaching them in the university classroom 38 years ago; I started writing about them 23 years ago; and I started blogging about them 10 years ago (https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-and-the-historical-criteria-for-members/).
Let me affirm: I am still a BIG believer in the criteria. And I am planning on using them in my next book on Jesus’ teachings of love and charity, because once more I will be talking about the historical Jesus (though I’ll be dealing with a specific topic I’ve never taken head-on before). But I’m thinking about getting away from labeling them and justifying the labels. And I think I’m completely justified in not justifying them.
For a very simple reason: these criteria simply are the guidelines that historians of all kinds ALWAYS use to establish what happened in the past in connection with an important person – whether Jefferson, Columbus, or Seneca. But NO ONE writing a biography on these important figures, begins by naming technical criteria and justifying them (at least, no one that I’ve read). They talk about the sources, but they figure out what is historical in them by applying clearly reasoned and sensible guidelines that have proved time and again to work.
My book is going to be largely about Jesus’ teachings about love and the radical change these teachings made in the ethical discourse of the ancient world, affecting the course of both ethical discourse and moral actions down to the present time. (Spoiler alert: I will NOT be arguing that people were immoral until Christianity came along or that love is a Christian invention!).
To do that, of course, I have to explain why it is difficult to know what Jesus himself actually taught. But I’m not going to do that by naming criteria. Or at least I don’t think I will. Instead I think I’ll just explain how historians work, since historians of all kinds are ALWAYS dealing with problematic sources. If the sources were not problematic, we would not need historians. We could just reprint what Plutarch *says* about Alexander the Great or what Suetonius *says* about Nero or, say, what Rabbi Dov Ber *says* about Baal Shem Tov. Historians don’t do that.
How do historians deal with their problematic sources?
- Historians gather all the sources of information about the person they can, hopefully from sources contemporary with them, and if such are not available (or even when they are) sources from close to the time, as close as we can get.
- Historians read the sources carefully, in great detail, compare them with one another, see where they are at odds with one another and where they agree.
- Historians try to determine which parts of the sources appear to contain non-historical (legendary) information, based for example on: 1) what they know from a range of other historical sources whose accounts have independently been confirmed through prior careful analyses of *them* as sources and 2) what is historically plausible.
- If accounts are implausible, historians try to figure out if they are at least within the realm of possibility or if that can’t be determined; if they are possible but not plausible, historians try to think of how the stories may have come into existence if they are not historical (why would someone have made them up, e.g.) and / or how in fact they maybe *could* have happened despite it not seeming likely.
- In many instances, historians have to simply decide what they think probably happened or say there is no way of knowing.
- Historians favor information about a figure in the past when there are:
- Found in early sources and not only in later ones, especially if it looks like these later ones copied the story from one another.
- Widely attested in lots of sources that give the same information in basically the same way, even though these sources haven’t relied on or even known about the existence of one another.
- Sources give information that it seems highly unlikely someone would have made up about the person.
- In addition, historians discount stories that are anachronistic – that is, that do not fit into the alleged historical context (e.g., a story about a 17th century French artist who moved to the United States).
In a very strong sense, historians work like criminal lawyers. They try to find as many reliable witnesses as they can; they try to show these witnesses agree with each other on main points rather than contradict each other repeatedly; they try to show that some of the testimony is not what a witness would have wanted to make up. (If a mother is forced under cross-examination to admit that her beloved son’s alibi doesn’t hold up, that’s not something she would have *wanted* to say; so it’s far less likely she made it up). And they try to show that the combined testimony is completely plausible even when it seems unexpected or unusual.
When historians approach the historical Jesus the way other historians approach other figures of the past, these are the kinds of considerations they take into account. And so there is little point, as I see it, to spend time worrying extensively about the validity of, say, “The Criterion of Dissimilarity.” It’s simply a commonsensical way of treating historical records, used by a range of historians who have never even heard the term.
For what it’s worth, I found the extensive discussion and application of the criteria in, eg, “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the the New Millennium” to be extremely valuable. There are so many different portraits of Jesus out there. The clear, explicit use of the criteria sets your books apart. It’s clear that it’s not just your opinion, that you’re being objective and rational.
Could you give an example or two from the gospels of the difference between there not being enough evidence to be able to say that something probably did happen vs evidence or reasons that it probably didn’t happen?
In a broad sense this is kind of like the difference between agnosticism and atheism.
This seems especially important for the gospels to counter the use by apologists of the argument that “it could have happened” even if we don’t have enough evidence to say it probably did or didn’t.
An easy one: I’d say it’s difficult to know if Jesus told the Parable of the Prodigal Son. It’s in only one source, Luke and it is perfectly consistent with Luke’s own views of repentance and forgiveness. taht suggests Luke came up with it. But it’s also completely coherent with Jesus’ own understanding of the need for the worst sinners to turn back in repentance. So … authentic or not?
What about an example of there being good evidence that something in the gospels probably did not happen?
What about whether Jesus was crucified on Passover or the day of preparation?
I’d say it’s relatively easy to show that if John is right that Jesus was crucified the afternoon before the Passover meal was eaten then Mark cannot be right that he was crucified the morning after it was eaten.
Yes, that was too easy. Is binary the word?
What about whether the historical Jesus claimed to be God? As far as I know he did not clearly state that he was not in fact God.
That’s not a contradiction, no.
Interesting post, enjoyed it. It seems to me that the big difference between Jesus and other historical figures is Jesus is tied to religious beliefs and therefore the “stakes” are higher. If historians suddenly discovered evidence that changed some agreed upon fact about the birth of George Washington, it literally has no effect on me. When I started to view the Bible and Jesus through a historical approach the conclusions I came to had tremendous consequences. Long way of saying there is aversion to listening to scholars when you don’t want to admit you could be wrong.
Yup, the stakes are higher. But the criteria of judgment are the same.
I agree that many of the criteria (multiple attestation, e.g.) are basically common sense historical analysis, but I’m not so sure the same can be said for the criterion of dissimilarity. Doesn’t that criterion imply all sorts of assumptions that are highly debatable about how closely Jesus would have fit into contemporary Jewish culture and how his philosophy aligned with that of the early church? How would that criterion apply to other historical figures?
The older way of using the criterion was problematic, because it said that a tradition about Jesus had to be dissimilar to Judaism. Most of us have dumped that part of it. It makes no sense. Why couldn’t Jesus be … a Jew???? THe criterion is not asking if there is something that is aligned with the church’s views, and therefore not credible; it’s doing the opposite: It’s asking if there is something in the tradition that his later followers would NOT have made up. If so, then it’s more likely to be something that happened (since it’s in the record and no one would have made it up.) And yup, historians use that notion all the time. If Obama’s secretary of defense who adores him says that he had a key lapse of judgment that could have turned out badly, and you know that the secretary absolutely has Obama’s back and deeply admires him, then his statement is more likely true than the same statement made by some Republican senator who despises him.
Are you saying that these ancillary Criterion serve less to provide unbiased insight into the gospels’ historical authenticity, and were largely created to provide (or end up providing) faux historical arguments for the historical reliability of the gospels?
I’m saying they simply cannot help much in determining of Jesus really said something. For example, if a saying of Jesus does contain an Aramaicism (i.e., a word or grammatical form that appears to have originally been Aramaic rather than Greek), that would almost certainly show that the saying was originally forumatled in Aramaic. But it wouldn’t tell you that *Jesus* formulated it, since all of his early followers also spoke ARamaic, and one of *them* could have come up with it.
Hola from Mexico!
I read with great anticipation to see how else you could propose that Jesus’ case be examined, without the criteria. Is that even possible? Or, short of new discoveries. all that can be said historically perhaps has already been said? But the debates , of course, will continue.
I was reminded somewhat of Socrates, and how we can possibly know which are his words, and which are Plato’s. And yet such scholarship seems to be much calmer than the search for the historic Jesus. Granted, Socrates didn’t become a universal God.
Another aspect is the type of minimalism espoused by the Jesus Seminar. Can such minimalism, however unpopular with both scholars and believers, be justified in light of the many caveats you mention? ( dearth of contemporary witnesses, etc)
.
Luckily, I brought with me a few of your books, including Jesus before the Gospels, which you mention above, and which I’m reading for the second time (great that you included the Baal Shem Tov, it was a pleasant surprise, but I disagree about Massada)
Ah, I’ll be using criteria. My point is that you can use criteria with explaining them and reifying them — that’s just what historians (and biographers) *do*. The Jesus’ seminar employed very strange criteria, at least if the ones them mention int he preface of their major publication, the Five Gospels, is any indication.
This is, in my view, one of your most important and radical posts I’ve seen here in a while. On the face of it, it’s a subtle modification, but one that has quite profound ramifications. It allows, for instance, the possibility that multiple sources all saying the same thing might actually be true – something that seems obvious to many, but has been discounted by critical scholars for being too neat and tidy. Jesus’s prediction that he would die and rise again being a good example.
I’d say scholars have always maintained that multiply attested stories could possibly be true. But just in our own day it’s quite easy to see that multiply attested stories are not *necessarily* true. Just think of what we read in the papers, often multiply attested nad simply false. Every historical claim has to be rigorously argued for; we can’t simply point to a criterion and say, See, it happened!
Bit of a random question, but can you think of any early Christian writings that could be related to housing discrimination or cited as an inspiration towards addressing that issue?
Lots. E.g., love our neighbor as yourself? Do unto others as you ahve them do to you? The parable of the Good Samaritan? The parable of the sheep and goats. Lots and lots of passages/verses.
Very true, thank you. Anything of the top of your head outside the new testament within early Christian writings? I haven’t dived into your first book on Didymus the Blind yet haha!
This will be teh topic of my next book. but the love teaching certainly continued on in books like the Didache, the Epselt of Barnabas, and so on.
It seems to me that another criterion that should be used is (what I’ll call) the criteria of triviality. It’s probably used by scholars, but I haven’t seen it specifically mentioned anywhere (probably because I’m just a hobbyist on this stuff). This criterion says that trivial things are more likely to be historical because there is no reason for people to lie about them. For example, in the synoptic gospels Jesus sends out “the seventy” which are obviously some of his disciples. And Jesus also selects 12 top disciples from among his dozens of disciples, for example, in Mark 3:13. Paul also notes in his resurrection appearances Jesus appearing to “the twelve” and then later to “all the apostles” which includes the twelve and all the others. The disciples (and therefore apostles) numbering in the dozens is rather trivial. So, the proposition that Jesus had dozens of disciples is likely historical just because it is so trivial.
I suppose the question is how one decides what is trivial. Both 12 and 70 are significant numbers in ancient Jewish thinking (e.g., 12 tribes of Israel; 70 as ten times the “perfect” number)
So is the claim that Jesus had twelve top disciples dubious because it is non-trivial. Perhaps the claim that Jesus had twelve top disciples is a later invention and is not historical for numerological reasons. It seems to me that Jesus had dozens of disciples and later writers used 70 for numerological reasons. So although the number 70 may not be historical the proposition that he had lots of disciples seems to be trivial. Cult leaders, being charismatic, typically attract lots of followers and I see no reason to think differently for Jesus.
Yup, it’s possible. But there are compelling reasons for thinking it’s authentic: it’s attested in numerous independent sources, sources that agree that there were twlve don’t know the names, it’s found already in Paul, it makes perfect sense in Jesus’ apocalyptic context, and there are some sayings that are almost certainly authentic for other reasons that indicate there were twelve (“you twelve will be seated on twelve thrones ruling the twelve tribes” — no one would have made that up after the crucifixion, since Judas was included among the twelve Jesus was talking to)
Yeah, I think there were 12 top disciples, but I also think he had others. Most charismatic leaders have dozens; I doubt if Jesus said `sorry, I’m maxed out at twelve’. Paul mentions “all the apostles”. We know that Judas Iscariot was the treasurer but would a group of 13 men, and a hand full of women, need a treasurer? Seems not, in such a small group each person could tend to their own finances. But with dozens of disciples, and their supporting traveling companions, a treasurer would be necessary. If Jesus had dozens of disciples at Gethsemane, then that would explain why “a great multitude with swords and clubs” was necessary to arrest him and why Judas would be needed to identify him. The multitude would be needed to fend off dozens of disciples but not a mere eleven. Acts 1:21-26 strongly suggests many disciples, beyond the twelve, since it clearly states those other followers were with the movement “from the beginning”. And dozens of followers are needed to be the welcoming crowd in the triumphal entry. I think dozens of disciples is multiply attested.
I’m curious what’s made you want to change here. I agree with others that the time your books take to demonstrate the objective measures and criteria gives the arguments valuable transparency and an important tie to the discipline. In fact, I even enjoy the discussion of the misuses of the criteria, as I think there is in Did Jesus Exist. The apologists are preaching them to their cohorts as well. Even Turek’s stand up routine hits the criteria of embarrassment on “get behind me satan” and Tamar in the lineage. If a Turek follower read your books, they would be able to see the other uses of the criteria that they weren’t familiar with.
I’m not changing which criteria I use or how I use them. I’m referring to how it might be simpler and less confusing to rpesent them. I don’t think I”ve read any history book that names the criteria used, with names no one would have thought of before (“dissimilarity,” e.g.)
There is one aspect of biblical scholarship that has always bothered me. Keeping in mind the generally accepted belief that there is little direct evidence outside church sources for the events of the Christian first century, I see many scholars–both sectarian and secular that seem to grasp at straws to try to prove a point. The one that leaps out at me is the small fragment of a Pauline writing that is dated as the earliest fragment of new testament scripture. As I recall it only involves a few verses. Now place this in a non religious context. There was a nuclear war that destroys the world’s civilization and all life on earth. An alien race thousands of years later visits the earth and finds a fragment of an article from The National Review and another from Pravda. There are only a few lines of text from each. They both refer to the build up toward the war. They say similar things. Would it be plausible for these aliens to assume that one source was identical to the other? I dare say William Kristol would be outraged.
When literalism becomes a religious methodology and a premise, and when historians of various categories base their source on this, the outcome can often be questionable.
If we don’t consider that the scriptures (OT and NT) were written by men, from different backgrounds, different cultures in different time periods, and with different versions, and sometimes newer than we (like to) think, as my Bible scholar, professor and Bible researcher, author – neighbor says, and not take into account the human factor related to perception/impression/reflection, can be problematic.
Many aspects of religious literalism are in many ways, or can lead to a “disaster”.
And today we learned that John P. Meyer has died, already a legend in biblical historyresearch. He alas will not finish his ‘ the increasingly inaccurately named Marginal Jew Trilogy ’. Jesus’ death, volume 6, will stay unfinished. Or will it not, Bart?
Oh, I’m so sorry to hear this. I hadn’t heard. He was a great scholar. I don’t know if he made any arrangements for someone else to finish it off for him.
Makes sense. Tell a story, and at each key juncture explain how confident you are about what happened next based on a holistic consideration of the evidence at your disposal.
So, the answer to “Why Do Historians Treat Jesus Differently from Every Other Historical Figure?” is that they don’t, they just spend more time explaining their methods? I can see why that would be necessary. There are not a lot of followers of Seneca who treat everything written about him as “gospel.” But Jesus followers are practically in control of the world and they are ready accuse anyone using history to refute things about Jesus as agents of evil. I don’t know how you have survived this long teaching in North Carolina.
Good point.
As a criminal prosecutor, I have often compared the analytical tools I use in my work with those used by Historical Jesus scholars. Generally, prosecutors employ the tools to build a case that supports our assertions; criminal defense lawyers use the tools to undermine them.
I always thought that to speak about “Multiple Attestation” in relation to the gospels is too much.
To begin with, the so-called “independence” of the sources is not an established issue.
Did Luke know Matthew? I think so (btw Goodacre in “The Case Against Q” make a very good work in asserting that this was the case although it could be perfectly possible that something like Q really existed and Luke did read Matthew AND Q)
But even if these sources are “independent” of each other and no matter how many we could have (M,L,Q,X… the rest of the alphabet if you want) these are the accounts of christians in relation to Christ .
Imagine a 4th millennium scholar trying to figure out who KIm Jong Un was based on “independent” depictions of him written by members of the North Korean Comunist Party….even applying all the possible criteria you will ended up with a totally distorted image of the “historical” Kim.
A major prior question is whether we can ever know, or show with reasonable probability, what happened in the past; and if so, how. If we can’t, then I’d say the human race is in dire straights.
I do think the human race is in dire straits.
But I don’t know if lack of knowledge about our past is the main culprit.
Did Jesus really exist ?
Was he an apocalyptic preacher?
Was his movement violent?
Was he crucified because he had a bad day at the temple or because “he really did see himself as the future king of the Jews”(https://ehrmanblog.org/why-was-jesus-crucified/)?
Did Romans crucified all freaks who believed to be a future king or only those who gathered people and were a real menace (like John the Baptist who was killed by Herod for fearing he could RISE a rebellion)?
Lots of interesting questions , but , does it really matter what the correct answer is?
For Luke it doesn’t matter at all.
He knew that Jesus was just one more in an array of Jews that “raised” before the great RISE, that’s the profound meaning of Acts 5:35-38.
The Big Bang of christianity was not Jesus “teachings” nor’Easter but what his followers DID just after his death, they CERTAINLY weren’t scattered or dispersed …
Luke knew it and then he wrote about what happened AFTER Jesus death (or about he wanted others believe happened ),
One way you can see how far the gospels could be from the historic facts is to compare Acts’s chapters on Paul with Paul’s authentic letters.
If you take Paul’s authentic letters and draw an itinerary of Paul’s voyages you end up with a very different sketch of what is told in Acts ( the four missionary journeys).
Luke is following Mark in making Jesus starting from Capernaum, then making successive trips always returning to Capernaum until he made his final way to Jerusalem.
In Acts Paul also started from Jerusalem (where the gospel was waiting to be carried to Rome by Paul – no return to Galilee as in the other accounts), then the successive trips always returning to Jerusalem until he made his final way to Rome.
Just a minor legal point regarding the example above, “a mother is forced under cross-examination to admit that her beloved son’s alibi doesn’t hold up.” While it is common in tv dramas to force witnesses into this kind of admission, in reality all a lawyer does in court is draw out testimony regarding the facts, and then saves the point about contradiction for the closing argument.
So, while you would, for example, want the testimony from the hypothetical mother about where her son was at a particular time, you would not go “one step too far” as my trial advocacy professor would say, and ask, “so that contradicts your son’s alibi, doesn’t it?”
Yes, I realize that; I should have stated it more clearly. The son’s alibi (e.g.) is that he could not have robbed the liquor store at 6:00 that evening because he was at home with his mother all evening till 9:00. But under cross examination, the mother says: Yes, my son left the house at 4:00 that day and did not return till midnight. She wouldn’t *want* to say what she does, so it’s more likely reliable.
That’s pretty much how it works with historical documents as well. When Mark says Jesus was crucified the morning after the passover meal was eaten, then John later says he was crucified the afternoon *before* it was eaten, he doesn’t go to admit that it’s a discrepancy with another source.
disabledupes{b92a50cffcb266d03fa368e52568ebe0}disabledupes
At what point in history do we no longer use these criteria? I’m asking seriously, do we question that Lincoln said… something at least at Gettysburg? I realize exactly what he said is in debate. Is it pretty much pre enlightenment any historical figure is held suspect until by some triangulation of criteria they are proven to have actually did what we thought they did?
Oh, yes indeed, we use them to decide everything about Lincoln. There are huge debates about what he said and did. But we need to apply them to far more recent times. Like what happened *yesterday* and how do we know (think Russia-Ukraine). Or, well, who actually won our last election? THe criteria are essential for knowing such things, and for people who don’t believe in history and are not interested in facts — then they can think anything and act on what they’ve chosen to think.
Could you give an example of any of these criteria being used in the study of Jefferson, Columbus, Seneca, or anyone other than Jesus?
All you need to do is look at detailed historical analyses (as opposed to popular biographies): scholars will say what the sources indicate, which ones say what, how to explain the differences, and so on. Most famously, you could consider accounts of the JFK assassination.
We know about Lincoln throughout his life. We know very little about Jesus in comparison – some birth legends and about 2 years of his adult life at most. We don’t know if he ever married, had children, or his sexual inclinations, except that he loved one of the disciples, presumed to be John. It’s amazing that historians can make a living out of so little, but maybe I’m being rather cynical!
There is one thing that I always keep saying you need to stress when discussing Jesus: Jesus today would be considered a cult leader and his followers considered cult members. I’ve discussed this with you before in person (at the Justin Bass debate event in Dallas back in 2016, and possibly once or twice before on the blog) and you replied that you didn’t consider early Christianity a cult. I think you should reconsider and I think you should write a book comparing Christianity to other cults – I even have a REALLY good book title for you… If you’re interested, I’ll email it to you through Diane. It’s really good. I’m going to use it for myself if you’re not interested on exploring this angle 😉 I think it should be explored how Jesus’ movement compares to other cults, how Jesus himself compares to other cult leaders, and how their charismatic activities (tongues, miracles, visions, ect) compare to what we see in other small cult-like religious/spiritual movements. I’ve been collecting evidence on this for some time.
I think the big problem is that the term “cult” itself is problematic. What does it mean? Scholars in religious studies these days avoid it because it’s pejorative, often simply used of a religious tradition that someone thinks is wacky. But that’s not a helpful understanding, since wacky is in the eye of the beholder.
“the term “cult” itself is problematic”. I know scholars prefer “New Religious Movement” today – a term so ambiguously phrased it could mean anything. But I think if we avoid using the word “cult” that we enable people to imagine early Christians as simply everyday folk, no different than their fellow church congregants – when I think we both know they absolutely were not the kinds of people (even for ancient Palestine) that we’d call “normal”. They spoke in tongues, had trances, performed exorcisms, thought they performed miracles, ect. Most importantly, they followed around one man who they believed was divine and hinged on his every word – so much so that they had visions of his resurrection after his death – which is a 101 stereotype for the word “cult”.
THere may have been some differences betweenn Christians and pagans, but there were huge varieties of both, and trances, gonuges, miracles, exorcisms are clearly attested throughout the pagan traditions as well. One problem that modern religion scholars point out is that at the end of the day it is very difficult to deiffernetiate between “cult” and “religion.” Usually cult is a derogatory term used by someone with equally strange beliefs and practices that just don’t seem strange because they are mainstream. (And 101 doesn’t use the term “cult” any more! 🙂 )
disabledupes{dcd19514c54038a906615482d7af66d1}disabledupes
Haha! I appreciate that. Yes, I realize the term “cult” can be highly offensive. I have a good natured cousin that says “everything is a cult”. Well, maybe! Ha. I’m interested in doing some debating with apologists on the resurrection and historical Jesus (although I do actually consider myself a very liberal Christian, myself). To me – the best angle of attack here is to bring up the bizarre spiritual practices; tongues and trances particularly. Today, no moderate Christian would take seriously another person who actively practices speaking in tongues – yet, the evidence is right there in the Bible that the earliest disciples did so quite vociferously! Paul even claims to speak in tongues “more than any of you”! I am very very curious why you never bring this up in any of your debates. Why is that?
Speaking in tonues is a widely attested phenomenon in a number of religions, ancient and modern. But I’m not sure how it relates to the resurretion of Jesus?
My copy of ‘The Oxford Bible Commentary’ has an interesting line wrt the historicity of John, “Gone are the days when it was scholarly orthodoxy to maintain that John was the least reliable of the gospels historically. From Dodd (1955—6) to Dunn (1983; 1991) it has become accepted that John contains sayings that are as primitive as or more primitive than their versions in the synoptic tradition.”
My understanding was this commentary, on the whole, gives the mainstream ‘scholarly consensus’ on things, but it seems to disagree with what you say is the ‘scholarly consensus’ when it comes to the historicity of John?
I guess if we say that *some* of the sayings may be primitive that’s OK, but I myself don’t think there’s much in John that goes back to the historical Jesus, apart from traditions parallel to what we find in the synoptics. (Sorry to be slow replying to your comment: it somehow got lost in the shuffle!)
You say that “ these criteria simply are the guidelines that historians of all kinds ALWAYS use to establish what happened in the past in connection with an important person”, but don’t apologists grant these criteria far more weight and importance than historians in other fields would ever grant them? Even a scholar/apologist like N.T. Wright uses the “criteria of embarrassment” to argue that women at the tomb witnessed the resurrection of Jesus. How many scholars, outside of NT studies, would suggest that such criteria are strong enough to evidence supernatural events?
I don’t think so. I think they just NAME them more than scholars in other fields. But you’re right — no one in any other field outside of religion would even CONSIDER trying to “prove” that supernatural events occurred. (Sorry to be slow replying to your comment: it somehow got lost in the shuffle!)
“But despite the yikes none of that would necessarily mean that the four NT Gospels are more legendary than historical”
NOT necessarily, but …
Take for instance the argument about dating Jesu’s death in
https://ehrmanblog.org/when-did-jesus-die-dating-jesus-death-by-the-earthquake/
The earthquake, the “darkness” that came over the land , the opening of graves and the coming back to life of the corpses appearing to many in Jerusalem are “OBVIOUSLY a SYMBOLIC statement”.
Ok , Matthew’s zombie apocalypse HAVE to be SYMBOLIC.
But what about those statements that are not so OBVIOUS SYMBOLIC.?
“follow me and I will send you out to fish for people.” (Mark 1:17)
They were really fishermen or is it just SYMBOLIC?
Did Peter cut off the priest’s servant ear as all four NT gospel states or is also SYMBOLIC?
Were Jesus’ Followers Armed and Eager to Fight in the Garden of Gethsemane?
https://ehrmanblog.org/werent-jesus-followers-armed-and-eager-to-fight-in-the-garden-of-gethsemane/
If “the sword attack is a story invented by an early Christian …who was trying to illustrate , that anyone who lives by the sword dies by the sword ” there could be other inventions behind any other story in the gospels.
With so many symbols and inventions from early christians to say that the gospels are “more legendary than historical” seems to be right.
In response to BD Ehrman on Tongues within this thread:
I thought that most mainstream scholars interpreted ‘Tongues’ as simply meaning foreign languages. I can’t remember where I read this years ago, but I thought that most scholars claimed that this ‘tongues’ reference was an explanation of the gifts given to the disciples and apostles to make it easier for them to spread the message of salvation to non Greek/Aramaic speaking people. Is this true?
Most scholars recognize that fActs 2 (Day of Pentecost) refers to known foreign languages and Paul (1 Cor. 12, 14) refers to unknown angelic (or otherwise non-human) languages.
Hello Dr. Ehrman,
In your response to the meaning of ‘Tongues,’ you reference 1 Cor. 14: 12. With my various electronic bible references, Here is what I see.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
What does this have to do with ‘tongues’ or speaking of any type?
I think maybe I said 1 Corinthians chapters 12 and 14? If not, I meant to!