(20 votes, average: 4.85 out of 5)
Loading...Every now and then I get emails from people who are, well, not exactly fans. They have heard that I’ve said this that or the other thing, and have no interest at all in reading anything I’ve written, but genuinely want to know: Why are you trashing the Gospels?
It’s a fair question, and deserves a fair answer. I dealt with it years ago on the blog; this is what I said then.
******************************
The short story is that I’m not *trying* to trash the Gospels. In my view, what I’m doing is showing what the Gospels really are and what they really are not. And that is not a matter of trashing them. It’s a matter of revealing their true character, rather than foisting a false character on them.
I’d agree, of course, that by arguing that the Gospels are not historically accurate I am contesting and challenging views of the Gospels that many Christians unreflectively have (and that some Christian scholars reflectively have). But urging a different understanding of the Gospels is not the same thing as trashing them. On the contrary if my views of the Gospels are right, then I’m illuminating the Gospels and showing both what kinds of books they are and how they ought to be read. That’s a good, positive thing, not a bad, negative one.
I should hasten to add that the views that I have of the Gospels are not
Blog members get five posts a week like this, with archives going back over ten years. Why not join the blog? Click here for membership options
Bart, you wrote, “For the dove and voice from heaven at the baptism, for example: even if those things didn’t happen, they are there for a reason: they show that at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry he was declared to be the Son of God—a very important theological point.” Did the dove and voice have specific symbolic associations at this time in history? I wonder because I read somewhere years ago that anywhere you see the number 40 linked to a division of time in scripture, like 40 years or 40 days, the 40 is a symbolic number that simply means “a sufficient time” or “enough time”. (This is my first comment on the blog.)
Yes, a dove descending may be a reference to the story of Noah, e.g. (God’s regeneration of the world after the flood); and the voice of God from heaven becomes a very important feature of some Jewish traditions — a direct representation of God’s will come to earth.
This is a great response. I love your wording in several places, and plan to plagiarize you. I know you get a lot of unwarranted criticism for telling it like it is. Since I’m a preacher, and have used many (most) of the points you make in sermons, I get that to. It’s usually no fun (but sometimes it is). What I find rewarding though, is seeing the light bulbs go off for many people who choose to become thinkers instead of bandwagon riders.
Classic Ehrman. Thanks for posting it.
Is this new scholarship taught in seminaries and the ministers are just not passing it along to their parishioners because they think it won’t be accepted? Do evangelical pastors attend seminaries? What’s the Roman Catholic Church’s stand on the new scholarship?
I had problems with the accuracy of the gospels by the time I was ten. I wish we had you then, but you were just a gleam in you father’s eyes in 1950.
Thanks for a great post.
I think most pastors are happy to have this information inform their own views, but they don’t think their parishioners either want to hear it or can handle it. Yes, evangelical pastors usually go to seminary, but theouls would be taught different persepctives based on their theological beleives. The RCC has been open to this kind of scholarship since VAtican 2.
Their stand on the new scholarship is… twofaced, like the Roman God Janus.
Personal experience. I’m Italian, former catholic turned deist, admirer of Thomas Paine.
It’s true that in the last decades they were more open, but only in seminaries or in academic quarterlies.
In late 80s- early 90s, when I was 10-12, Catechism was still very traditional and literalist. Adam, Eve and Noah were treated like historical figures, while I already knew that they weren’t because In school I learned evolution and other ancient deluge myths (Deucalion and Pyrra). So I never believed to original sin and fall of mankind but I was afraid to speak openly. German professor Uta Ranke-Heinemann was fired (luckily not burned) for her heretical views.
In more recent years things improved a little. In 2008-2010 professor Mauro Pesce, a scholar who wrote several interesting books about NT, was criticized by “official” websites but in a quite polite way.
The worst attacks came from traditionalist bloggers, usually people without academic credentials.
Fr. Arturo Sosa Abascal, the Jesuit’s Superior General, said in a interview with the Spanish paper El Mundo that Satan is a “symbolic figure” who doesn’t really exist and that NT should be seen as reflecting a particular cultural context, and added that “no one had a tape record to take down words.”. Cardinal Pell said the existence of Adam and Eve was not a matter of science but rather a mythological account. “It’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world,” he said. “It’s a religious story told for religious purposes.”.
This makes perfect sense. Whenever I attempt to share Dr. Erhman’s work with my Christian family, it gets discounted without consideration. When I attempt to chat with them about anything religious, they are defensive. But it seems to me a more thorough and balanced understanding of the book would be helpful.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.” Jonathan Swift.
Dale Carnegie has a near identical quote : “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
To me, one of the most fascinating aspects of Gospel critical scholarship lies in showing how Christianity evolved over time. Of course, Christianity is not unique in this; all faith traditions evolved over time.
But many believers (not just Christians) have the perception that their faith simply sprung into being monolithically in the form in which they currently experience it. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, but when your entire world is built on what you think is a monolith, and someone claims that monolith is actually shifting sand…well, humans have an unfortunate tendency to lash out at that kind of challenge!
Personally, I think that studying the evolution of a faith tradition actually adds both breadth and depth to the experience of it. But then, I’m a little weird…
I’m fairly knowledgeable about the historical Jesus. When I find myself discussing the gospels with Christians who are not, I’m always tempted to lead with statements that certain things are not accurate: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn’t actually write the gospels; the four source hypothesis; contradictions amounts by the gospels; no post-resurrection appearances in the original version of Mark; etc.
This seems like a needlessly negative approach to an informal discussion. Christians must often automatically react that I’m asserting some sort of superiority and even dogmatism over them.
Do you have any suggestions about how to approach and begin discussions like this? The best way I can think of is to start with important things that are thought to be historically accurate, eg, apocalypticism; the proclamation of the kingdom of god; the relationship of Jesus’s other teachings and actions to that proclamation; the great commandment; etc. I suppose I could go from there to how other things were meant to evoke faith in Jesus rather than to be factual accounts.
Or maybe just start out with the fact that for three hundred years “scientific” historians have been working out what probably happened and didn’t happen?
Something like The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament by joshua Bowen would be a good place to start. I am currently reading Volume 2, and the book is specifically written to help non fundamentalists have discussions with true believers in a way that isn’t antagonistic or confrontational. Of course, it only covers the OT (Vol 1 covers different parts of the OT), but the techniques and strategies would apply to the NT as well.
Well, I’m on the other end of the spectrum of those who think Bart ‘trash’ the gospels …
I think Bart ”trusts” the gospels so much !!!
But in the case of “Jesus was given a decent burial …” It is the other way around.
I had read your article about crucifixion in Roman times and your analysis about Philo and it is rather compelling(https://ehrmanblog.org/did-romans-allow-decent-burials/)
But when I read Matthew 28:13-15 about Jews explanations in relation to the empty tomb …
‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’
‘ And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day. ’
If those Jews were denying Jesus’s resurrection against christian claims , why would they invent a story (that of the stealing of the corpse) assuming there really was an empty tomb?
Why did they not say ‘Jesus was crucified and his corpse as that of any other crucified one was not buried at all‘ ?
I think we can not totally discard a “decent burial” , it would be hard to understand the initial spread of the resurrection stories without a real “empty tomb” story ….
Based off the amount of manuscripts, can scholars figure out where specific books were written? Not only based on the language used, but the way the manuscripts were spread in a certain region.
Nope. The manuscripts are mainly centuries later, so there’s no way to establish where they originated.
Permit me to play the devil’s advocate:
BDE: scholars–like me–determine what is and isn’t historically accurate in the NT, not on some ad hoc basis, but through “slow, deliberate, conscientious, rigorous application of historical criteria based on a very wide range of knowledge of the surviving texts and of lots of other things”
Fundamentalist: But the theophany at the Baptism is just as textually secure as the facts that Jesus was baptized in the Jordan, at the beginning of his ministry, by John the Baptist.
The only reason you deny the *theophany* at the baptism (while accepting the other facts of the baptism) is that the theophany is miraculous. You deny the theophany because of your antecedent–undefended–commitment to the belief that miracles simply don’t happen, and therefore you dismiss out of hand the possibility that the theophany did happen, even against the unanimous testimony of your own sources.
But (our fundie friend continues), such an antecedent and a priori rejection of miracles is itself not based in evidence or science. If in fact a miracle happened–and you can’t prove that it simply couldn’t have–then in principle an historian ought to investigate the claim based on the evidence it allegedly left behind.
The problem is that textual security is not the issue. It is textually secure that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas told stories of killing children that got on his nerves. The fact that it is found in the manuscripts shows that the Gospel originally told the stories. It has no bearing on whether the stories happened. The theophany at Jesus’ baptism is in the Synoptics. It is textually secure. That has no bearing on wehther it happened. THe same criteria you apply to decide if the stories in Infancy Thomas happened are used to decide if the stories in the Synoptics did. Same, not different!
Right, you can’t believe everything you read.
But the fundamentalist presses on: The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is relatively late, and so isn’t generally regarded as historically reliable by anyone.
But the canonical Gospels are relatively early, and even you think they record some genuine history.
So–I’m still in character here–what objective criterion can you point to that makes you accept the canonical Gospels when they together claim Jesus was baptised by John, but to reject them when, in the very same passage they also claim that a voice from heaven called him son?
Maybe you will point to dissimilarity–the evangelists wouldn’t invent the embarrassing baptism of Jesus by John–; but if you accept their unanimous testimony as historically true only when it is embarrassing to to Christianity you stack the methodological deck against Christianity. You have, in effect, built the falsity of Christianity into your “scientific” methodology. Is this something that would support the truth-claims of Christianity? Yes? then it fails dissimilarity, and we can’t accept it as historically reliable–even when all four of our earliest witnesses concur that it happened.
One thing is the discrepancy between teh reports. Another thing is how we establish the probability of past events when doing history. All we do in history is decide what *probably* happened. Things that are documented as having happened thousands/millions of times are not improbable. Things that have never been documented as happening are improbable. Things that happen a few times every few centuries are less probable than one and more probable than another. It’s not very complicated really. If someone says that John was an apocalyptic prophet and there’s nothing weird about it… then OK< why not? If they say he was the emperor of China, well, OK, it's not impossible but not likely. If they say that he was a Martian, that's probably more unlikely. And so on down the line. Probabilities, up and down.
One of the main problems with the gospels is the claim that they (and the entire canon) are inerrant. However that isn’t, I believe, a claim made in the gospels but made outside the canon by some people.
Please explain why some believe the gospels are inerrant and the history behind it. I assume it was something from the 3rd century. It feels like 3rd century.
The way people today think of “inerrant” is a product of the 19th century rise of fundamentalism (see Sandeens, Roots of Fundamentalism). Certainly some people in the third century and later came to think that the words were all literally true. That’s in part because Christians started to appeal to written apostolic authority for their views, in light of the fact that so many different communities/christians had so many alternative views — authorities were needed, and they needed to be apostolic and therefore written.
Is Jesus’ alleged commandment to eat his body and drink his blood historical, even if only with metaphorical intent? These actions are, to a Jew, abominations.
Paul , the first to write about this ( 1 Corinthians), grew up as a Jew. He would have been taken aback too.
Rituals of eating raw flesh and drinking a god’s blood as wine were Dionysian, ie, a pagan idea. BTW, Dionysos also converts water into wine.
The Jewish ritual of blessing wine and bread ( in this order) was current then as it is today.
Finally, if Jesus didn’t expect to be crucified, which may have been the case, there was no reason to mention a broken body and shed blood.
Is it possible that this section was interpolated in Paul’s writing by a pagan hand, and was later reproduced by John?
Are there passages that scholars know were not written by Paul?
Alternatively, as stories about the resurrected Jesus circulated during those 20 years between Paul’s conversion and his writings, one such story could have reached Paul. And Paul, after all, lived in the center of the Greco-Roman world.
Is there consensus amongst scholars about the historicity of this problematic passage?
Of course the Eucharist is taken up by the synoptics before John mentions the flesh and the blood. It’s just that the crudest rendering – which would have caused a Jew to faint- is in John. I just can’t believe Jesus said that.
It is also possible that at the time Paul mentions the bread and the wine , the idea that this is Jesus’ body and blood had yet not entered the tale of that Passover supper. Therefore Paul was not so bothered by it.
No, I don’t think Paul or the early Gospels speak about eating Jesus’ body and drinking his blood. The bread represents the body that was broken – it’s not that it WAS the body that was broken. The idea the sacrament becomes the body and blood is a later development. You begin seeing it in the Gospel of John (ch. 6).
In the NT, what exactly is the new covenant? I think I know what the old covenant is: Israelites would follow God’s law, including worship of one and only one god—and God in turn would care for and protect them and give them the promised land.
Is the new covenant that Jesus died to obtain forgiveness of our sins and we can obtain salvation by believing in (the efficacy of) Jesus (‘s death and resurrection)? Are the love commandments an essential part of the new covenant too, replacing or fulfilling the OT law?
I’m intrigued by the possibility that the shedding of Jesus’s blood was understood at least as much as a sacrifice ratifying this new covenant as it was a sacrifice in atonement for sin. Weren’t OT covenants ratified with animal sacrifices that were unrelated to atonement?
Of course the new covenant, in my first description, clearly includes an atoning sacrifice. I suppose Jesus’s death could be understood as both.
But if the love commandments are the main part of the new covenant —that also includes God’s forgiveness—couldn’t Jesus’s death be understood as a simple ratification with little if any atonement?
The new covenant, roughly speaking, is the new agreement that those who believe in the dying and rising messiah are now the people of God. Those who are the people of God will naturally follow in teh ways of God. The principle way of doing that is by keeping the love commandment.
Your final sentence is a pithy summation of what the Gospels are and are not.
Thank you Mr Bart! I appreciate those three points at the end-what scholars look for- I might add that I’m a believer, and I enjoy your blog and I don’t taste trash! Not that you needed defending😊
i might add i’m very drawn to that approach, ( just a bit lay)The Who what when where and why , and now along with those the HOW . I’m approaching a time where I’m going to reread the Bible, on many fronts.
I wanted to correct something that I seen that I put in this post when I put in parentheses [just a bit lay] I was talking about myself. Just for clarification
Wonderful. Like what you have written very much. What you write seems sensible and actually helpful to people of faith.
imo, the way you presented, can make people conclude that you ‘trash’ the gospel, as we can’t see how each view relate to each other (if they can relate to each other). I’d believe that there are even theological students who don’t resolve this issue. I have friends who wanted to be a minister, went to study, found out about this subjects on the bible, and decided to move to other ‘more conservative’ universities/seminaries. perhaps it’d help us – the general public – to have a guide or discussion on how the actual history x theological interpretation intersect, rather than leaving it to us to think and decide, as we are not grad students of this subject. e.g. differentiating between the theological jesus x the bible jesus x the historical jesus – and how the 3 can all be ‘true’. perhaps many of us are still thinking in dichotomy.
Not a comment about this post, but a (small) complaint… The audio feed is not working. If you already noticed, thank you, if it’s not going to work at all, well… I guess I’ll go back to reading all the posts.
Love the blog, and hope it can be fixed.
There was a hiccup for a brief period. Is it still not working? I haven’t heard other complaints. If there’s still a problem either send me a private email or click Help and tell Support. Thanks?
It came back yesterday. Thank you very much! I don’t mind reading, but since I drive a lot I prefer listening.
I’ve recently began reading your text The Bible A Historical and Literary Introduction and have been enjoying it. Since the first few chapters address the exodus and Mosaic authorship, I was wondering if you had watched any of Timothy Mahoney’s film series Patterns of Evidence or even heard of it for that matter. I have not watched any of the films but in previews he claims to have discovered evidence for traditional views. Are you familiar with any of these claims or evidence?
Thanks
No, I’m not familiar writh it (or him). Of course conservative Christians have held that there is evidence since … there have been conservative Christians. So I don’t know if he has something new to offer or not.
Hi Bart,
1. Merely arguing that the canonical Gospels are Greco-Roman Biographies that by definition do not exhibit modern standards of history by itself does not challenge traditional Christianity.
2. However, arguing that the virgin birth in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke is historically inaccurate does challenge traditional Christianity. But that challenge has no impact on divine Christology.
3. Arguing that Jesus’s references to the Danielic (Cosmic) Son of Man was not referring to himself but to someone else totally opposes the basic Christian tenet of divine Christology, such as incarnational Christology and the belief that “Jesus is Lord.”
4. Arguing that Jesus never predicted his death to his disciples while referring to the Hebrew Scriptures cuts into all versions of substitutionary atonement. Some proponents of Christos Victor atonement might appreciate that, but I think that Christos Victor is historically flawed.
Along these lines, I want to ask you about your favorite opposition, if I may.
First, who do you think does the best at supporting the view that the historical Jesus referred to himself as the Danielic Son of Man?
Second, who do you think does the best job at supporting the view that the historical Jesus predicted his own death to his disciples?
1. Well I don’t think he did, but the best evidence is that he clearly indicates he is the son of man in the Synoptic Gospels. That would be teh view of most scholars. 2. I’m not sure — again it’s widely held.
You may want to read the books of Dale Allison who probably and Larry Hurtado who almost certainly holdes these views?
I can’t remember where I read it (I think maybe Joshua Bowen ?), but it was something like “don’t ask what is the text saying, ask what is the text doing.” IMO, this sound similar to some of the points above, and makes a lot of sense.
Bart, all of your examples of gospel narratives that are “probably not” historical involve miracles, which might lead some to assume (incorrectly) that your primary criteria for assessing historical reliability is a dismissal of the miraculous. But aren’t there many historical and textual reasons to find a text historically unreliable? For example, the conflict of Luke’s birth narrative (associated with Quirinius) against Matthew’s (associated with Herod the Great)? Or the conflict in genealogies? Or the conflicts about whether the apostles fled to Galilee or stayed in Jerusalem after the crucifixion? And so on?
Yes, it’s a bit crazy to say that historians simply use an anti-supernaturalist bias to determine what happened in teh Gospels. We simply apply the same criteria to the Gospels as to every other anceint writing to figure out what probalby happened. Contradictions between sources and with information solidly established on other grounds play key roles.
Another excellent post heading, along with the recent “Does God create people to roast in Hell?” from Jason Staples!
So, trash the Gospels? I am reminded of the response from Monty Python’s (the late, great) Terry Jones who objected to the (conservative & evangelical) charge of blasphemy concerning The Life Of Brian. Considering the movie made zero derogatory direct references to God or Jesus the charge of blasphemy was nonsense. However, heresy, being in conflict with church teaching, was a charge he was happy – almost delighted – to wear!
And so to the complaint against Prof Ehrman. He certainly sets himself – not in some personal vendetta but by the power of his academic efforts – against various theologies & interpretations from various corners of the church, but he only ever deals honestly & respectfully with the gospel documents themselves. If listeners don’t like what they hear they need to deal with it & start asking the really important questions of Why? & What should they do about it? Shooting the messenger doesn’t invalidate or destroy the message.
Your task is commendable; a serious scholar has the duty to show things for what they really are. In my opinion harsh criticism against you or other mythbreakers stems from fear. Israeli professor Zeev Herzog was attacked by US fundamentalists when in a article he wrote that the Patriarchal cycle, the Exodus, the conquer of Canaan and other parts of the Hebrew bible are not supported by archaeology and are not literally true. It’s the consensus among the majority of scholars since 1990s or early 2000s but such “discoveries” still did not reach the pews and Sunday schools. Traditionalist clergymen and believers are not keen to open their minds. Their main fear is that doubting about the holy books will lead them to damnation and / or loss of “eternal life”. Lack of blind faith = Thought crime. Of course, liberal theologians like Bishop Spong are way more favorable to textual criticism and encourage people to use their brain.
It may sound hypocritical from me, but while I am a great fan of your work and I am keen to recommend your books to colleagues (I hold a PhD in history) and acquaintances who are secular, I would not donate your essays – or books written by other scholars like Geza Vermes or Gerd Ludemann – to elder relatives who are happy with their beliefs because I would be afraid to shatter their world view. They are not fundamentalists but religion provides to them meaning and comfort, while to me gave anxiety and fear.
Yeah, I stopped giving them to my mom.
But technically you are trashing their *idea* of the gospels, and that is bad enough (from their perspective). Once they see the validity of any of the points you are making, they are faced with the creeping problem of doubt. Their lives were much simpler when they lived under the blissful and comforting blanket of certainty, even if it was based on ignorance (as certainty so often is).
Yes, I can trash your understanding of astrophysics or Hamlet without trashing astrophysics or Hamlet.
“Most Gospel scholars, for example, if asked, would say that they are reasonably certain that Jesus was given a decent burial by Joseph of Arimathea. But in *principle* they would not necessarily be opposed to the alternative view that it is a legendary addition to the stories. There is nothing in principle against the idea that there are legendary aspects of the Gospels. That has been acknowledged by critical scholars of the New Testament as long as there have been critical scholars of the New Testament – for over 300 years.”
This brings up a question I’ve had for a long time – do scholars “play it safe” as not to rock the already rocking boat too much? I feel scholars know they can’t get into too much trouble by going along with accepted ideas. As a layman, I don’t find Jesus’ burial certain at all given the way Romans are known to treat those they crucified. I’m not absolutely convinced either way, but I’m skeptical of the claims in the gospels, especially when they contradict what we know about that time.
Many scholars decidedly do not want to rock the boat too much. They may not get into professional trouble, but they don’t want to make waves and suffer verbal attacks like that Ehrman fellow.
I think the same thing that made you an outspoken evangelical to begin with made you a relatively outspoken scholar to begin with. When you got a new truth you had to share it with the girl you loved.
If you think something is true or may be true you are not content to keep it to yourself, your soul compels you to at least share that option with others whether or not they’re willing to take it.
I see that in me but of course the world doesn’t react too kindly to these invisible intentions. Lighting up the dark, clearing out falsehood or trying to, fallibly provide that option to whoever would want it comes with a price you have paid and most scholars have not.
I prefer a scholar who is willing to embrace vulnerability and error and struggle in the path of lighting the way for the masses, not merely the select group of people who won’t trouble him for his curiosity. Doing so requires its own kind of bravery, the same bravery of the humans that brought early Christianity out of the dark and into the world at large.
Raised a conservative Christian, I became disenchanted with the faith and the bible after I began earnest study outside the confines of the church. It was because of you and other scholars that I found renewed interest in the bible. Now I read it with a totally different understanding than my younger days. It is so much more fascinating today. Thank you.
Your post sparked an ancillary question that I’ll ask despite its demonstration of my ignorance. I have never heard about contemporary Jews getting baptized. Do you know if they do? Do you know if Jews routinely baptized during Jesus’ time? I have always thought of baptism as uniquely christian. But for the first time today, when I read your post the logic crashed in on me. If baptism is uniquely christian, why did John the Baptist, well, baptize? And if it is not uniquely christian, why do we only hear of it in regards to christianity?
No, Jews are not baptized the way Christians are. It was also not common in Jesus’ day — though Jews certainly did have lots of cleansing rituals. But the idea of a one-time baptism at a way of entering into the religion is Christian. It is based on the practice of John the Baptist, who may have come up with the idea himself; since Jesus was baptized by him, his followers later insistedn on baptism as well.
The probability game in deciding what might be a historical fact is interesting. Breaking a law of nature such as resurrecting a corpse is highly unlikely > 99.99. Breaking a Roman Law such as giving a decent burial to a crucified criminal is unlikely, but not as much as breaking a law of nature. They could bribe a Roman soldier to look the other way, but mother nature does not take bribes. The “what if” theories could be endless. What if someone survived the crucifixion and was revived? Being a detective in a recent case is challenging. Investigating a 2000-year-old case is much more. It’s no wonder that these stories are still discussed today.
Yup. And I suppose that when someone (like most apologists) admit that non one of the past ten billion people who have died (say, in the last 100 years) has been raised from the dead, that the *chances* are not .01 but, well, one out of 10,000,000,000! 🙂
Let me speak as a non-scholarly Christian:
“Hey, if you are playing the Devil’s Advocate, doesn’t that mean you have to take Bart’s side?”
I have found this to be one of my pet peeves with fellow clergy. In discussing Bart’s work with my peers, I usually encounter an immediate wall; the consensus is that Bart is an enemy of The Faith. Those holding this view have rarely read anything by Bart. Its just their trust in what has been passed along to them by those that fear that reading Bart is paramount to being faithless.
I’ve never encountered Bart denying that a miracle of the bible occurred. Instead, as a historian, his premise is that based on the probability of occurrence, it behooves us to consider what is more probable that may have occurred. He usually makes the premise explicit. It seems quite reasonable to me and has certainly expanded my understanding of the importance of asking questions. I guess I am, in many of my peers’ views, the Devils Advocate.
Anyway, I think anyone would have a devil of a time, trying to use Bart’s writings, within their own context, to prove he “knows” miracles don’t occur.
I am curious about the “decent burial by Joseph of Arimathea” claim, and why it is generally accepted. I personally believe that Joseph and his servants picked up the “body” of Jesus (though I am doubtful about asking Pilate for it), but I am very uncertain that Jesus was actually dead. It is easy to imagine Joseph or his servants noticing Jesus still hanging in there, just barely, and bringing him away and pretending to bury him. Would not be the first time in history somebody was thought to be dead but was not. Of course the greatest evidence of an erroneous claim of death would be seeing that person alive after the supposed death. This logic applies to legal cases in the modern day, why not accounts of Jesus’ death? Is there a scholarly reason to be certain that Jesus did die at his crucifixion?
The main reason is that we hear of thousands of Roman crucifixions but none in which they crucified someone who was thought to be dead who actually lived. Especially because they left the corpses on the crosses for days.
Doesn’t Josephus reference one or two Jewish generals who were crucified but did not die? It seems the criteria for surviving a crucifixion are being taken down early (not left hanging for days) and having someone care for the crucified person after being taken down. Seems like Jesus meets both of these criteria. Certainly very highly unusual for someone to survive a Roman crucifixion, but also highly unusual to be taken down early. Highly unusual does not equate to impossible, even if Jesus is the only one to have ever been thought dead but survived. I think discrediting the “swoon theory” requires more than “it never happened before”, especially considering the huge number of “not dead yet” reports in the modern day even with advanced medical knowledge.
Oh, yes, that’s right — it was completely possible to be crucified and removed from the cross before dying (since it normally took many hours or even days). In the case of Josephus, he petitioned for two people he knew to be removed before they had been on very long, and they were, and one of them survived. But that’s not what happens with Jesus (and it’s not what happened in 99.99% of the cases). They did not remove him from the cross before he died.
I hate to belabor this point but… There are very few possibilities regarding stories of Jesus’ resurrection, either Jesus actually rose from the dead in some way that is totally impossible except for a “miracle”, the stories of Jesus walking around after the crucifixion are either made up, hallucinations, or some kind of misidentification (like Elvis sightings), or Jesus was not actually dead. The “miracle” thing I dismiss out of hand. The misidentification/hallucination thing is certainly plausible but seems unlikely. The “not dead yet” possibility seems the most likely to me. The main hurdle to that possibility is the pre-mature death call by witnesses. How could so many people be wrong? But the opposite possibility, that people cannot be wrong about things like time of death, is ridiculous. People are wrong all the time! It is not hard to believe that people could be wrong about Jesus being dead.
Most anything in the human realm that involves human judgments is possible. Historians decide what probably happened — given that the something is “possible” — on what is probable given everything else we know. If we don’t know of any instances of someone from the Roman world surviving crucifixion then most historians think that it would be improbable — especially when there aren’t any accounts that indicate it happened (especially accounts in connection with the individual case we’re interested in).
Does anyone know when the Qur’an was written? How long after Prophet Muhammad’s death?
THere are certainly many millions of people who think they do! If you just look it up on the Internet you’ll see.
Okay! Will do!
The Qur’an was completed less than twenty years after the Prophet Muhammad’s death.
As someone raised fundamentalist who is now agnostic, I think the gospels have become much more interesting to me since I began looking at them again, as an adult, in the way you describe, and with knowledge I can pick up from you and other academics.
Also is ‘good news’ really the best translation of ‘gospel’? It has always struck my ear as kind of silly, like ‘good news, drinks are half-off’. Maybe it just sounds salesman-like.