Monday, April 27, 2015
Bart D. Ehrman discussions
Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users
RSS
YouTube
Google+
Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
Membership
why & how to join
Philanthropy
assist the needy
Latest Posts
member & public
Member Forum
discussions
Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers
Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogProblems with the Hebrew Bible Manuscripts
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...
Problems with the Hebrew Bible Manuscripts
QUESTION:
Bart, these issues you’ve found in the New Testament, have you studied and found similar issues in the Old Testament?”
RESPONSE:
Yes indeed! Hebrew Bible (the Christian Old Testament) was my secondary field in my PhD program, and I taught Introduction to Hebrew Bible at both Rutgers and UNC. A few years ago when I decided to write my Introduction to the Bible I decided that to do it right I had to re-tool in Hebrew Bible. I’m by no means an expert, but I have caught up on a good deal of scholarship and re-learned Hebrew (I hadn’t read it in years). I try to read some Hebrew Bible every morning; I’m not great at it, but I can slog through with a dictionary…..
So, I think it’s fair to say that the problems that I have talked about in my publications about the New Testament are even more pronounced for the Hebrew Bible. I think I will take three of the big issues (I’m happy to address others if there are any questions people have – that I can answer!) and devote a brief post to each one.
In this post: The textual situation. My book Misquoting Jesus was about how we do not have the originals of any of the books of the New Testament, but only copies made later – in most cases many centuries later, so that there are some places where specialists cannot agree on what the text originally said, and there are some places where we’ll probably never know. The situation is much worse for the Hebrew Bible. Much much worse.
With the New Testament, we have….
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, go to the Members’ Site. If you don’t belong yet, NOW’S YOUR CHANCE!!!
image_pdfimage_print
in
Share
.
Inconsistencies in the Hebrew Bible (For members)«
Problems with the Hebrew Bible Manuscripts (For Members)»
7
JUN
2013
2
Comments
2 Comments
0 Trackbacks
SHELENBERGER June 8, 2013
Off the topic. My subscription is about to expire 6/12/13. What do I do to extend this?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman June 9, 2013
If you have a one-month subscription, you will need to sign up again. If you have a three-month or a one-year subscription you will be alerted that it has automatically been renewed.
Log in to Reply
Subscribe to Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search by Keyword or User Name
Bart’s Recent Posts
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015
More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015
My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015
BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015
On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015
“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015
Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015
What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015
Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015
Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015
My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015
Archives
Select Month April 2015 (19) March 2015 (27) February 2015 (21) January 2015 (22) December 2014 (26) November 2014 (23) October 2014 (23) September 2014 (26) August 2014 (26) July 2014 (25) June 2014 (25) May 2014 (42) April 2014 (42) March 2014 (39) February 2014 (37) January 2014 (45) December 2013 (45) November 2013 (40) October 2013 (45) September 2013 (42) August 2013 (44) July 2013 (48) June 2013 (45) May 2013 (40) April 2013 (43) March 2013 (44) February 2013 (43) January 2013 (52) December 2012 (46) November 2012 (44) October 2012 (55) September 2012 (51) August 2012 (46) July 2012 (54) June 2012 (51) May 2012 (38) April 2012 (18)
Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
Latest Additions
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...
More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...
One Time Donation to Foundation
Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!
This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.
Monthy Reoccuring Donations
When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112
Enter Your Donation Amount
Login
Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Register | Lost your Password?
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design
Return to Top
http://ehrmanblog.org/problems-with-the-hebrew-bible-manuscripts-2/
Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users
RSS
YouTube
Google+
Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
Membership
why & how to join
Philanthropy
assist the needy
Latest Posts
member & public
Member Forum
discussions
Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers
Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogProblems with the Hebrew Bible Manuscripts
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...
Problems with the Hebrew Bible Manuscripts
QUESTION:
Bart, these issues you’ve found in the New Testament, have you studied and found similar issues in the Old Testament?”
RESPONSE:
Yes indeed! Hebrew Bible (the Christian Old Testament) was my secondary field in my PhD program, and I taught Introduction to Hebrew Bible at both Rutgers and UNC. A few years ago when I decided to write my Introduction to the Bible I decided that to do it right I had to re-tool in Hebrew Bible. I’m by no means an expert, but I have caught up on a good deal of scholarship and re-learned Hebrew (I hadn’t read it in years). I try to read some Hebrew Bible every morning; I’m not great at it, but I can slog through with a dictionary…..
So, I think it’s fair to say that the problems that I have talked about in my publications about the New Testament are even more pronounced for the Hebrew Bible. I think I will take three of the big issues (I’m happy to address others if there are any questions people have – that I can answer!) and devote a brief post to each one.
In this post: The textual situation. My book Misquoting Jesus was about how we do not have the originals of any of the books of the New Testament, but only copies made later – in most cases many centuries later, so that there are some places where specialists cannot agree on what the text originally said, and there are some places where we’ll probably never know. The situation is much worse for the Hebrew Bible. Much much worse.
With the New Testament, we have….
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, go to the Members’ Site. If you don’t belong yet, NOW’S YOUR CHANCE!!!
image_pdfimage_print
in
Share
.
Inconsistencies in the Hebrew Bible (For members)«
Problems with the Hebrew Bible Manuscripts (For Members)»
7
JUN
2013
2
Comments
2 Comments
0 Trackbacks
SHELENBERGER June 8, 2013
Off the topic. My subscription is about to expire 6/12/13. What do I do to extend this?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman June 9, 2013
If you have a one-month subscription, you will need to sign up again. If you have a three-month or a one-year subscription you will be alerted that it has automatically been renewed.
Log in to Reply
Subscribe to Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search by Keyword or User Name
Bart’s Recent Posts
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015
More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015
My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015
BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015
On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015
“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015
Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015
What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015
Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015
Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015
My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015
Archives
Select Month April 2015 (19) March 2015 (27) February 2015 (21) January 2015 (22) December 2014 (26) November 2014 (23) October 2014 (23) September 2014 (26) August 2014 (26) July 2014 (25) June 2014 (25) May 2014 (42) April 2014 (42) March 2014 (39) February 2014 (37) January 2014 (45) December 2013 (45) November 2013 (40) October 2013 (45) September 2013 (42) August 2013 (44) July 2013 (48) June 2013 (45) May 2013 (40) April 2013 (43) March 2013 (44) February 2013 (43) January 2013 (52) December 2012 (46) November 2012 (44) October 2012 (55) September 2012 (51) August 2012 (46) July 2012 (54) June 2012 (51) May 2012 (38) April 2012 (18)
Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
Latest Additions
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...
More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...
One Time Donation to Foundation
Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!
This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.
Monthy Reoccuring Donations
When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112
Enter Your Donation Amount
Login
Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Register | Lost your Password?
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design
Return to Top
http://ehrmanblog.org/problems-with-the-hebrew-bible-manuscripts-2/
Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users
RSS
YouTube
Google+
Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
Membership
why & how to join
Philanthropy
assist the needy
Latest Posts
member & public
Member Forum
discussions
Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers
Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogProblems with the Hebrew Bible Manuscripts (For Members)
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...
Problems with the Hebrew Bible Manuscripts (For Members)
You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
image_pdfimage_print
in
Share
.
Problems with the Hebrew Bible Manuscripts«
Jesus’ Inflammatory Words (For Members)»
7
JUN
2013
41
Comments
41 Comments
0 Trackbacks
Yentyl June 7, 2013
Sigh. Why can’t life be easy?
Anyway, article from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls#Biblical_books_found
Log in to Reply
RonaldTaska June 7, 2013
Another excellent question and excellent response. It’s odd that we have so many New Testament copies and so few Old Testament copies. I wonder why that occurred. Obviously, the two Testaments were not combined into one book for centuries. The history of the hows and whys of that combination would be interesting as well.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman June 8, 2013
It happened because Jewish scribes who copied a text (very accurately!) then destroyed it. No need for it, once it was reproduced….
Log in to Reply
RonaldTaska June 8, 2013
Aha! That is so helpful. I had no clue why there would be so few ancient Old Testament manuscripts. That explains it. Thanks, Ron
Log in to Reply
toddfrederick June 8, 2013
This is a question that I have to ask myself constantly regarding “problems” in the manuscripts:
It seems to me that the foundation of three great religions is based on the accuracy of sacred literature: the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, and the Qur’an. If this foundation is shaken, the religions fall.
Your job as a scholar is to examine the New Testament documents historically and textually using the tools of critical analysis. if the results of your work shows that the New Testament is unreliable then your are out of a job and the Christian religion (and other religions) is based on a lie.
Many have come to that conclusion and have renounced their faith.
My son asks me why I read your writings. Why don’t I read the works of people who believe that the bible is the source of life changing divine truth in the person of Jesus? I tell him that I read your writings because you tell us what is historically and textually correct without personal interpretation….that what you do is historical and linguistic and is not theology.
Would that be a good, yet simple, way to express what you do?
The real danger in scholarship of this sort is that we we may lose the baby in the bathwater.
If scripture is discredited then the message is also discredited.
I don’t think that such is true: we can study scripture honestly and still retain the truth of the message.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman June 8, 2013
I would say that Christianity historically has *not* been about the Bible; that’s only a modern development.
And I wouldn’t say that my views are presented without interpretation. I would say that my interpretations are guided by historical principles rather than religious or theological principles.
Log in to Reply
toddfrederick June 8, 2013
Thank you for your reply…it is a clarification I needed to confirm…that is: Christianity is based on more than a text.
Log in to Reply
raskel June 8, 2013
Bart:
Unrelated question/ feel free to ignore/ but what was the meaning and status conferred on a person by virtue of being an apostle and what was the criterion for attributing it to a person in the early Church? Any good early primary sources available in translation addressing this issue?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman June 8, 2013
Apparently the title simply meant one who was “sent” by Christ on a mission; it came to be understood as one who was especially commissioned by Christ for the mission; and from there it came to mean one of the original leaders of the early Christian church and its mission. The only primary sources we have are those of the New Testament.
Log in to Reply
raskel June 8, 2013
Thank you. I was thinking more in terms of Greek Fathers and the meaning of Apostolic Succession-what exactly was being passed down.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman June 9, 2013
My sense is that the church fathers thought that an “apostle” was one of the original followers of Jesus who had a vision of him after his resurrection (so the eleven and Paul, basically).
Log in to Reply
James Dowden June 8, 2013
The thing I find amusing about Jeremiah is how the Alexandrian accretions (Baruch and the Epistle) got parcelled off into the Apocrypha, whilst the Palestinian accretions got left in the main text. If only someone would publish an English Bible with both sets of accretions removed. I suppose part of the problem there is that Baruch and the Epistle are really very readable when removed, whereas the Palestinian expansions would look more like the Additions to Esther in being totally disjointed.
Log in to Reply
Brad Billips
Brad Billips June 8, 2013
I’ve always been amused about how 1 Samuel 13:1 reads so differently in numerous Bible translations. Saul was how old and reigned how many years? Some Bibles just place “…” “…” for the years. Dr. Ehrman, do you have any other facts on that passage? Thanks.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman June 8, 2013
I’m afraid there are no facts to be had! The surviving witnesses don’t give us a number!
Log in to Reply
Jerry June 8, 2013
Bart,
When will your introductory book about both the OT and NT of the Bible be out?
Jerry
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman June 8, 2013
It is due out in November, I believe.
Log in to Reply
seeker_of_truth June 8, 2013
very interesting!
Log in to Reply
mister.friendly June 8, 2013
I am (as you know) very interested in all this. I am interested here in your comment that you, “slog through [Hebrew] with a dictionary…”
When dealing with an ancient language like this with – I presume – little in the way of extant examples of the language how easy is it to compile a reliable dictionnary? What is the meaning of the hebrew word ‘yom’? Does it mean day as we understand it or something else? What about ‘raqia’ often translated as firmament? And ‘tsela’ – does it mean or correspond to the English word ‘rib’?
It is not so much these particular examples which interest me (though they do) but more the general question which I might put to you thusly:
Having studied the NewTestament in Greek and being familiar with that language and now struggling with Biblical Hebrew what personal reflections might you share as to where the linguistic difficulties lie for the would be scholar of the Old Testament?
Hope that makes sense. Very keen to follow the thread you have already started here. Many thanks for all this.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman June 8, 2013
Yes, the linguistic difficulties of ancient Hebrew are much more pronounced than for ancient Greek (or ancient Latin, e.g.). That’s because we have so many, many more texts in Greek (and Latin) than in Hebrew, making it possible to establish the meanings of words with fair reliability. With Hebrew it is much more difficult. Linguists who specialize in ancient Semitic languages, as a result, need to rely heavily on cognate languages to help them establish the meaning of Hebrew roots. And so a real expert will also know Ugaritic, Akkadian, Sumerian, and possibly even other languages! It’s not for the faint of heart. And it is not guess work. It is unbelievably difficult and disciplined hard-core scholarship. I’ve known some of the top scholars of ancient Semitic languages. They are quite stunning in their knowledge and abilities.
Log in to Reply
richard October 10, 2014
Hello Doc Ehrman
“Linguists who specialize in ancient Semitic languages, as a result, need to rely heavily on cognate languages to help them establish the meaning of Hebrew roots”
any books you can recommend on this problem?
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart October 10, 2014
Hmmm. Great question. I”m afraid I don’t know. If they do exist, they would presuppose knowledge of Akkadian, Ugaritic, and so on….
Log in to Reply
John June 9, 2013
Bart , do you think that there was coordination at some point between those responsible for the Christian and Hebrew Bible? If not they surely had a copy of the Hebrew when they presented the Christian Bible. Is it probable that the Hebrew was written in Babylon? Coincidentally the Old Testament references Egypt often , where they imported their worldview from through Canaan, so they are in essence condemning what they are entrenched in as if it were someone else but not them personally. Tragically the New Testament inherently possesses these same paradoxical attributes of blame, murder, and false worship, the same paradoxical attributes that Genesis describes as consequences of the freewill fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that manifested from Adam to Cain. Clearly there is no coincidence here, just fruit. Furthermore instead of interpreting the discovery of of the dead sea scrolls as proof validating the bible, couldn’t it instead be seen as the forgery factory is is?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman June 9, 2013
The Christian Bible was put together by church leaders who already had the “Old Testament” in its Greek translation. The Hebrew Bible was principally, but not exclusively, written in Israel itself. The Dead Sea Scrolls do not “validate” the Bible in the sense of showing that what it says is true; they simply show (a) that there were copies of the Bible very much like what one could find later, a thousand years earlier and (b) how some Jews were interpreting the Bible.
Log in to Reply
SHameed01 July 9, 2013
Were the Deutrocanonical books originally part of the Hebrew Bible?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman July 9, 2013
No.
Log in to Reply
SHameed01 July 9, 2013
Weren’t there Hebrew/Aramaic of the Deutrocanonical books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman July 10, 2013
Nope.
Log in to Reply
SHameed01 July 10, 2013
If so, how would you explain the following words from the following link: http://www.oswaldsobrino.com/2003/05/dead-sea-scrolls-and-deuterocanonical.html? ( see below)
Of the deuterocanonical books found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, Sirach is found in Hebrew, the Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) is found in Greek (although the editors state that it was “likely composed in Hebrew”), and Tobit is found in the Semitic languages of Aramaic and Hebrew (see DSC, pp. 599, 628, & 636). Some of those who raised doubts about the original language of some of the deuterocanonicals were fathers of the Church, who now stand corrected. As Joseph Fitzmeyer, S.J., who was part of the early editorial team working on the Dead Sea Scrolls, has written concerning the book of Tobit: “The fact that we now have both Aramaic and Hebrew forms of the book of Tobit reveals something about the book which neither Origen nor Jerome knew” (Joseph Fitzmeyer, S.J., The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins, p. 135 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2000])
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman July 11, 2013
Veyr interesting. Thanks.
CalifiorniaPuma December 17, 2013
As a scholar, how do you ascertain whether an ancient manuscript is the *original*, even if it dates to the appropriate period? We may have only copies of the Old & New Testament books, but if much older manuscripts came to light, could you or your colleagues ever determine that a manuscript was an original? It sounds problematic in any ancient setting. Sorry if you covered this before and I missed it.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman December 18, 2013
Yes, I’ve covered it a bit. My view is that it would be next to impossible to know if a copy from the right period is the original
Log in to Reply
richard gills September 16, 2014
does the torah say that parts of it were burnt?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 16, 2014
No.
Log in to Reply
richard October 22, 2014
Dr Ehrman
Genesis 28:20-21:
20Then Jacob made a vow, saying, “If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, 21so that I come again to my father’s house in peace, then Yahweh shall be my God.
is yhwh understood here as a proper name for god or understood as an epithet?
if as a proper name then was EL the dominant god who presided over yhwh?
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart October 22, 2014
YHWH is almost always the personal name of God in the Hebrew Bible. El or Elohim sometimes seems to function as a name, but it typically is a noun meaning “God” — as here.
Log in to Reply
richard October 23, 2014
Dr Ehrman
how do you understand , ” YHWH shall be my God ” ?
is it something Jacob chooses to be his god or is it no choosing at all but simply the name for god in ” if god will be with me…”
in other words yhwh and elohim is the same name for the same god ?
i think there are some scholars who say yhwh was a junior diety and El fathered yhwh
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart October 24, 2014
He is choosing which God (Elohim) to make his own, and chooses YHWH from among them.
Log in to Reply
Blackie October 25, 2014
Perhaps this question is out of left field. Was there a time when the ancient Hebrews polytheistical. Was Moses the founder of monotheism? In the epoch of henotheism and the birth of national gods was the storm god Yahweh promoted to Elohim and YHWH. Well God was surrounded by the heavenly host(angels of all ranks and service). There was deference for other spiritual beings but eventually only one multitasking god with auxiliaries.
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart October 26, 2014
Yes, certainly many ancient Israelites believed there were many gods, and the prophets are good evidence that many Israelites worshiped multiple gods.
Log in to Reply
Adam Beaven March 1, 2015
Doctor Ehrman
is the suffering servant guilty of his own sins in is 53:10?
who is giving the soul as an offering?
the sufferer ?
“If his soul doth make an offering for guilt, ”
who’s guilt? his guilt?
many jews are arguing that the suffering servant is a sinner
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart March 3, 2015
His sins or the sins of the people (probably the latter)
Log in to Reply
Subscribe to Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search by Keyword or User Name
Bart’s Recent Posts
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015
More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015
My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015
BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015
On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015
“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015
Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015
What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015
Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015
Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015
My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015
Archives
Select Month April 2015 (19) March 2015 (27) February 2015 (21) January 2015 (22) December 2014 (26) November 2014 (23) October 2014 (23) September 2014 (26) August 2014 (26) July 2014 (25) June 2014 (25) May 2014 (42) April 2014 (42) March 2014 (39) February 2014 (37) January 2014 (45) December 2013 (45) November 2013 (40) October 2013 (45) September 2013 (42) August 2013 (44) July 2013 (48) June 2013 (45) May 2013 (40) April 2013 (43) March 2013 (44) February 2013 (43) January 2013 (52) December 2012 (46) November 2012 (44) October 2012 (55) September 2012 (51) August 2012 (46) July 2012 (54) June 2012 (51) May 2012 (38) April 2012 (18)
Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
Latest Additions
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...
More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...
One Time Donation to Foundation
Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!
This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.
Monthy Reoccuring Donations
When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112
Enter Your Donation Amount
Login
Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Register | Lost your Password?
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design
Return to Top
http://ehrmanblog.org/problems-with-the-hebrew-bible-manuscripts/
Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users
RSS
YouTube
Google+
Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
Membership
why & how to join
Philanthropy
assist the needy
Latest Posts
member & public
Member Forum
discussions
Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers
Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogProblems with the Hebrew Bible Manuscripts (For Members)
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...
Problems with the Hebrew Bible Manuscripts (For Members)
You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
image_pdfimage_print
in
Share
.
Problems with the Hebrew Bible Manuscripts«
Jesus’ Inflammatory Words (For Members)»
7
JUN
2013
41
Comments
41 Comments
0 Trackbacks
Yentyl June 7, 2013
Sigh. Why can’t life be easy?
Anyway, article from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls#Biblical_books_found
Log in to Reply
RonaldTaska June 7, 2013
Another excellent question and excellent response. It’s odd that we have so many New Testament copies and so few Old Testament copies. I wonder why that occurred. Obviously, the two Testaments were not combined into one book for centuries. The history of the hows and whys of that combination would be interesting as well.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman June 8, 2013
It happened because Jewish scribes who copied a text (very accurately!) then destroyed it. No need for it, once it was reproduced….
Log in to Reply
RonaldTaska June 8, 2013
Aha! That is so helpful. I had no clue why there would be so few ancient Old Testament manuscripts. That explains it. Thanks, Ron
Log in to Reply
toddfrederick June 8, 2013
This is a question that I have to ask myself constantly regarding “problems” in the manuscripts:
It seems to me that the foundation of three great religions is based on the accuracy of sacred literature: the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, and the Qur’an. If this foundation is shaken, the religions fall.
Your job as a scholar is to examine the New Testament documents historically and textually using the tools of critical analysis. if the results of your work shows that the New Testament is unreliable then your are out of a job and the Christian religion (and other religions) is based on a lie.
Many have come to that conclusion and have renounced their faith.
My son asks me why I read your writings. Why don’t I read the works of people who believe that the bible is the source of life changing divine truth in the person of Jesus? I tell him that I read your writings because you tell us what is historically and textually correct without personal interpretation….that what you do is historical and linguistic and is not theology.
Would that be a good, yet simple, way to express what you do?
The real danger in scholarship of this sort is that we we may lose the baby in the bathwater.
If scripture is discredited then the message is also discredited.
I don’t think that such is true: we can study scripture honestly and still retain the truth of the message.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman June 8, 2013
I would say that Christianity historically has *not* been about the Bible; that’s only a modern development.
And I wouldn’t say that my views are presented without interpretation. I would say that my interpretations are guided by historical principles rather than religious or theological principles.
Log in to Reply
toddfrederick June 8, 2013
Thank you for your reply…it is a clarification I needed to confirm…that is: Christianity is based on more than a text.
Log in to Reply
raskel June 8, 2013
Bart:
Unrelated question/ feel free to ignore/ but what was the meaning and status conferred on a person by virtue of being an apostle and what was the criterion for attributing it to a person in the early Church? Any good early primary sources available in translation addressing this issue?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman June 8, 2013
Apparently the title simply meant one who was “sent” by Christ on a mission; it came to be understood as one who was especially commissioned by Christ for the mission; and from there it came to mean one of the original leaders of the early Christian church and its mission. The only primary sources we have are those of the New Testament.
Log in to Reply
raskel June 8, 2013
Thank you. I was thinking more in terms of Greek Fathers and the meaning of Apostolic Succession-what exactly was being passed down.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman June 9, 2013
My sense is that the church fathers thought that an “apostle” was one of the original followers of Jesus who had a vision of him after his resurrection (so the eleven and Paul, basically).
Log in to Reply
James Dowden June 8, 2013
The thing I find amusing about Jeremiah is how the Alexandrian accretions (Baruch and the Epistle) got parcelled off into the Apocrypha, whilst the Palestinian accretions got left in the main text. If only someone would publish an English Bible with both sets of accretions removed. I suppose part of the problem there is that Baruch and the Epistle are really very readable when removed, whereas the Palestinian expansions would look more like the Additions to Esther in being totally disjointed.
Log in to Reply
Brad Billips
Brad Billips June 8, 2013
I’ve always been amused about how 1 Samuel 13:1 reads so differently in numerous Bible translations. Saul was how old and reigned how many years? Some Bibles just place “…” “…” for the years. Dr. Ehrman, do you have any other facts on that passage? Thanks.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman June 8, 2013
I’m afraid there are no facts to be had! The surviving witnesses don’t give us a number!
Log in to Reply
Jerry June 8, 2013
Bart,
When will your introductory book about both the OT and NT of the Bible be out?
Jerry
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman June 8, 2013
It is due out in November, I believe.
Log in to Reply
seeker_of_truth June 8, 2013
very interesting!
Log in to Reply
mister.friendly June 8, 2013
I am (as you know) very interested in all this. I am interested here in your comment that you, “slog through [Hebrew] with a dictionary…”
When dealing with an ancient language like this with – I presume – little in the way of extant examples of the language how easy is it to compile a reliable dictionnary? What is the meaning of the hebrew word ‘yom’? Does it mean day as we understand it or something else? What about ‘raqia’ often translated as firmament? And ‘tsela’ – does it mean or correspond to the English word ‘rib’?
It is not so much these particular examples which interest me (though they do) but more the general question which I might put to you thusly:
Having studied the NewTestament in Greek and being familiar with that language and now struggling with Biblical Hebrew what personal reflections might you share as to where the linguistic difficulties lie for the would be scholar of the Old Testament?
Hope that makes sense. Very keen to follow the thread you have already started here. Many thanks for all this.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman June 8, 2013
Yes, the linguistic difficulties of ancient Hebrew are much more pronounced than for ancient Greek (or ancient Latin, e.g.). That’s because we have so many, many more texts in Greek (and Latin) than in Hebrew, making it possible to establish the meanings of words with fair reliability. With Hebrew it is much more difficult. Linguists who specialize in ancient Semitic languages, as a result, need to rely heavily on cognate languages to help them establish the meaning of Hebrew roots. And so a real expert will also know Ugaritic, Akkadian, Sumerian, and possibly even other languages! It’s not for the faint of heart. And it is not guess work. It is unbelievably difficult and disciplined hard-core scholarship. I’ve known some of the top scholars of ancient Semitic languages. They are quite stunning in their knowledge and abilities.
Log in to Reply
richard October 10, 2014
Hello Doc Ehrman
“Linguists who specialize in ancient Semitic languages, as a result, need to rely heavily on cognate languages to help them establish the meaning of Hebrew roots”
any books you can recommend on this problem?
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart October 10, 2014
Hmmm. Great question. I”m afraid I don’t know. If they do exist, they would presuppose knowledge of Akkadian, Ugaritic, and so on….
Log in to Reply
John June 9, 2013
Bart , do you think that there was coordination at some point between those responsible for the Christian and Hebrew Bible? If not they surely had a copy of the Hebrew when they presented the Christian Bible. Is it probable that the Hebrew was written in Babylon? Coincidentally the Old Testament references Egypt often , where they imported their worldview from through Canaan, so they are in essence condemning what they are entrenched in as if it were someone else but not them personally. Tragically the New Testament inherently possesses these same paradoxical attributes of blame, murder, and false worship, the same paradoxical attributes that Genesis describes as consequences of the freewill fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that manifested from Adam to Cain. Clearly there is no coincidence here, just fruit. Furthermore instead of interpreting the discovery of of the dead sea scrolls as proof validating the bible, couldn’t it instead be seen as the forgery factory is is?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman June 9, 2013
The Christian Bible was put together by church leaders who already had the “Old Testament” in its Greek translation. The Hebrew Bible was principally, but not exclusively, written in Israel itself. The Dead Sea Scrolls do not “validate” the Bible in the sense of showing that what it says is true; they simply show (a) that there were copies of the Bible very much like what one could find later, a thousand years earlier and (b) how some Jews were interpreting the Bible.
Log in to Reply
SHameed01 July 9, 2013
Were the Deutrocanonical books originally part of the Hebrew Bible?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman July 9, 2013
No.
Log in to Reply
SHameed01 July 9, 2013
Weren’t there Hebrew/Aramaic of the Deutrocanonical books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman July 10, 2013
Nope.
Log in to Reply
SHameed01 July 10, 2013
If so, how would you explain the following words from the following link: http://www.oswaldsobrino.com/2003/05/dead-sea-scrolls-and-deuterocanonical.html? ( see below)
Of the deuterocanonical books found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, Sirach is found in Hebrew, the Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) is found in Greek (although the editors state that it was “likely composed in Hebrew”), and Tobit is found in the Semitic languages of Aramaic and Hebrew (see DSC, pp. 599, 628, & 636). Some of those who raised doubts about the original language of some of the deuterocanonicals were fathers of the Church, who now stand corrected. As Joseph Fitzmeyer, S.J., who was part of the early editorial team working on the Dead Sea Scrolls, has written concerning the book of Tobit: “The fact that we now have both Aramaic and Hebrew forms of the book of Tobit reveals something about the book which neither Origen nor Jerome knew” (Joseph Fitzmeyer, S.J., The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins, p. 135 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2000])
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman July 11, 2013
Veyr interesting. Thanks.
CalifiorniaPuma December 17, 2013
As a scholar, how do you ascertain whether an ancient manuscript is the *original*, even if it dates to the appropriate period? We may have only copies of the Old & New Testament books, but if much older manuscripts came to light, could you or your colleagues ever determine that a manuscript was an original? It sounds problematic in any ancient setting. Sorry if you covered this before and I missed it.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman December 18, 2013
Yes, I’ve covered it a bit. My view is that it would be next to impossible to know if a copy from the right period is the original
Log in to Reply
richard gills September 16, 2014
does the torah say that parts of it were burnt?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 16, 2014
No.
Log in to Reply
richard October 22, 2014
Dr Ehrman
Genesis 28:20-21:
20Then Jacob made a vow, saying, “If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, 21so that I come again to my father’s house in peace, then Yahweh shall be my God.
is yhwh understood here as a proper name for god or understood as an epithet?
if as a proper name then was EL the dominant god who presided over yhwh?
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart October 22, 2014
YHWH is almost always the personal name of God in the Hebrew Bible. El or Elohim sometimes seems to function as a name, but it typically is a noun meaning “God” — as here.
Log in to Reply
richard October 23, 2014
Dr Ehrman
how do you understand , ” YHWH shall be my God ” ?
is it something Jacob chooses to be his god or is it no choosing at all but simply the name for god in ” if god will be with me…”
in other words yhwh and elohim is the same name for the same god ?
i think there are some scholars who say yhwh was a junior diety and El fathered yhwh
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart October 24, 2014
He is choosing which God (Elohim) to make his own, and chooses YHWH from among them.
Log in to Reply
Blackie October 25, 2014
Perhaps this question is out of left field. Was there a time when the ancient Hebrews polytheistical. Was Moses the founder of monotheism? In the epoch of henotheism and the birth of national gods was the storm god Yahweh promoted to Elohim and YHWH. Well God was surrounded by the heavenly host(angels of all ranks and service). There was deference for other spiritual beings but eventually only one multitasking god with auxiliaries.
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart October 26, 2014
Yes, certainly many ancient Israelites believed there were many gods, and the prophets are good evidence that many Israelites worshiped multiple gods.
Log in to Reply
Adam Beaven March 1, 2015
Doctor Ehrman
is the suffering servant guilty of his own sins in is 53:10?
who is giving the soul as an offering?
the sufferer ?
“If his soul doth make an offering for guilt, ”
who’s guilt? his guilt?
many jews are arguing that the suffering servant is a sinner
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart March 3, 2015
His sins or the sins of the people (probably the latter)
Log in to Reply
Subscribe to Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search by Keyword or User Name
Bart’s Recent Posts
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015
More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015
My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015
BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015
On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015
“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015
Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015
What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015
Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015
Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015
My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015
Archives
Select Month April 2015 (19) March 2015 (27) February 2015 (21) January 2015 (22) December 2014 (26) November 2014 (23) October 2014 (23) September 2014 (26) August 2014 (26) July 2014 (25) June 2014 (25) May 2014 (42) April 2014 (42) March 2014 (39) February 2014 (37) January 2014 (45) December 2013 (45) November 2013 (40) October 2013 (45) September 2013 (42) August 2013 (44) July 2013 (48) June 2013 (45) May 2013 (40) April 2013 (43) March 2013 (44) February 2013 (43) January 2013 (52) December 2012 (46) November 2012 (44) October 2012 (55) September 2012 (51) August 2012 (46) July 2012 (54) June 2012 (51) May 2012 (38) April 2012 (18)
Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
Latest Additions
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...
More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...
One Time Donation to Foundation
Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!
This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.
Monthy Reoccuring Donations
When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112
Enter Your Donation Amount
Login
Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Register | Lost your Password?
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design
Return to Top
http://ehrmanblog.org/problems-with-the-hebrew-bible-manuscripts/
Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users
RSS
YouTube
Google+
Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
Membership
why & how to join
Philanthropy
assist the needy
Latest Posts
member & public
Member Forum
discussions
Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers
Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogMy Next Project
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...
My Next Project
I’ve had several people ask what I’m working on, now that How Jesus Became God has come and gone from. The answer is: the very next thing! And it’s something that I’ve gotten really excited about, as excited as I was about How Jesus Became God. For some reason, when I was doing that book over the past couple of years, I thought that it was going to be the climax of my trade book publishing career, and that everything would be downhill from there. I was completely wrong about that. I’m now just as passionate about the next project.
I mentioned the book earlier on the blog, before I decided for sure that it was going to be next. But it definitely is. It will be about the oral traditions of Jesus in circulation in the years before the Gospels were written.
So, just to give a bit of background — a review for some of you and new information for probably some others. Scholars have long held that Mark was the first of our Gospels to be written, and that it probably appeared sometime around the year 70 CE. Some scholars think it might have been a bit before that (I used to think that); more scholars think that it might have been a bit after. But almost everyone agrees that Mark dates to around the end of the Jewish War (66-70 CE). The only ones who consistently have argued otherwise are fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals, who very much want Mark, our earliest Gospel, to be closer to the time of Jesus.
Maybe some time on the blog I’ll explain why 70 CE seems like a plausible date. For now, let’s just say that this is the virtually consensus view among critical scholars. The last Gospel has traditionally been thought to be John, and it is normally dated to 90 or 95 CE. Matthew and Luke then were probably somewhere between these two (since they used Mark and must date after 70 CE, but seem to be older than John and so must be earlier than 90 CE) – so say 80 or 85 CE.
What is striking, and what I have long emphasized in my writings, is that time gap between the death of Jesus in 30 CE and the first accounts of his life in 70-95 CE. It’s a gap (for those who are mathematically challenged) of 40-65 years.
And so the question is, what was happening during all those years to the stories being told about Jesus? The Gospel writers themselves do not claim to have been disciples of Jesus, and do not claim to be eyewitnesses of the events they narrate, and do not claim (contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, largely by not reading the texts in question carefully enough) to have derived their stories directly from eyewitnesses. The Gospels were written anonymously, in different parts of the world from where Jesus lived, in a different language from the one Jesus used, four and more decades after Jesus died. So where did they get their stories?
They got them from oral traditions about Jesus that had been in circulation over all that time, in different languages (at least Aramaic and Greek) in different places in different contexts.
All that is well known, and I’ve written about it before.
But what I’m interested in now is…
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, go to your paid Members’ site. If you don’t belong yet, THERE IS STILL HOPE!!!
Member Content Continues:
You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
image_pdfimage_print
in
Share
.
My Future Books«
ANT: Methods of Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church»
13
AUG
2014
117
Comments
117 Comments
0 Trackbacks
toejam August 13, 2014
Sounds interesting. I do hope you tackle some of the ideas presented by scholars like Richard Bauckham. I’m half-way through his ‘Jesus & the Eyewitnesses’ at the moment. Struggling to get through it because, although he makes the occasional noteworthy point, much of it seems very speculative and dressed up to be more than it is – e.g. at one point he suggests that the reason Lazarus wasn’t mentioned in the synoptics was because the gospel writers were concealing his identity operating under some kind of witness protection program! It was at that point I realised I was reading apologetics, not cautious scholarship.
I also recently watched a debate between Richard Carrier and Zeba Crook on the historicity of Jesus. A question came up in the Q&A about the validity of the use of pre-gospel ‘oral traditions’ in attempting to reconstruct the past. Predictably, Carrier dismissed the use of oral traditions as completely untrustworthy speculation. But I was surprised that Crook too basically agreed – that even if there was a colorful oral tradition behind the gospel stories, that we really don’t have any reliable way to access them and as such it’s more or less a wild goose chase that requires a dose of circular reasoning just to get started…
Log in to Reply
Adam0685 August 15, 2014
The position about the complete untrustworthiness of oral tradition seems to also imply the complete untrustworthiness of the gospels (which I don’t think Zeba holds!), since the gospels are based on that oral tradition (unless one argues that Mark, for example, completely made up the stories he wrote or based his account on eyewitness testimony).
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 16, 2014
I think it is too much to say they are “completely” untrustworthy. If the oral tradition involved inventions of episodes and sayings of Jesus,and the alteration of historically accurate material, the task is to try to establish what is historically accurate. (Well, that’s one task, anyway)
Log in to Reply
VirtualAlex August 13, 2014
Awesome.
Log in to Reply
talitakum
talitakum August 13, 2014
Ok, so the next Clash of Titans will be Ehrman vs. Bauckham ;) Looking forward to it !
Some quick considerations about your interesting post: an early dating of Mark is not only supported/proposed by “fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals”, unless you want to count Casey (RIP) and Crossley among them.. and I don’t think it’s the case :)
Mark gospel likely used some written sources, and Luke has been explicit about such existing written material circulating at his time, moreover some scholars propose an early composition date for the core Passion’s account: these things may challenge the assumption that oral traditions have been the only/main channel for tradition. Finally, I know that scholars like Anthony LeDonne recently explored this very interesting field of studies (memory, perception, tradition) that can actually challenge the “traditional approach” of Historical Jesus scholarship. So, once again you are going to give your contribute to a modern, fascinating topic ..
Looking forward to reading more on this blog! :) Regards
Log in to Reply
TomTerrific August 13, 2014
Your new project sounds fascinating.
Are you going to try to tie it in with other cultures with oral traditions? I understand it was quite strong in the Celtic peoples, which was roughly the same time and a lot of legend is attached to their methods.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 14, 2014
Yes, the current plan (it may change!) is to talk about what we know about oral cultures from anthropologists (and others).
Log in to Reply
stephena August 13, 2014
How will your book differ from the work of the Jesus Seminar, which attempted to determine the actual words of Jesus? I find this topic you’re taking up of supreme importance because the words of Jesus are at the core of my faith, rather than the second- or third-hand stories ABOUT him.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 14, 2014
Our concerns and interests are broadly similar, but the Jesus seminar never produced a book about the oral traditions per se.
Log in to Reply
stephena August 14, 2014
Their analysis (in various colors!) of the Four Gospels and Thomas in “The Five Gospels” were close to that, though. I do wish there was a book with a detailed listing of the Logia or Sayings of Jesus that are considered “authentic” and reasons WHY they are considered so. Perhaps that will be part of this effort?
I also really, really enjoyed your translations of the non-canonical books in your “Lost Scriptures” books and wish you’d tackle the Gospels themselves (highlighting the Variants, which NO Bibles currently do) unless you feel one or more versions “get it right,” or “close enough.”
Log in to Reply
nichael August 13, 2014
For those of us waiting for these books, can I suggest two books on this topic that I’ve found both immensely informative as well as great reads (that is, “recommend” to my fellow readers; I’m sure Dr Ehrman doesn’t need any help in this area).
The first is Walter J Ong’s classic “Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word”. This book serves as a great introduction to current thought about what the transition from purely oral cultures to literate ones means. The book discusses the (often significantly) different ways by which each collect, maintain, and transmit historical and cultural information; the different views each has on what “factual truth” can mean; and, perhaps most importantly, offers insights into how our assumption about, and answers to such question –and our understanding of their importance– that we share in a modern literate society, is very much an artifact of our belonging to such a society.
The second is “Is That a Fish in Your Ear?: Translation and the Meaning of Everything” by David Bellos. The title is a touch too cute for my tastes, but this book provides a fascinating and highly enjoyable introduction to the issues involved in translation. While not directly focused on questions of literacy, it offers many insights into the technical, linguistic and cultural problems involved in transfering “meaning” from one language into another.
Log in to Reply
AlanTaylorFarnes August 13, 2014
I’m excited to read your work on oral history. You state that the oral tradition was THE source for the gospel writers: “So where did they get their stories? They got them from oral traditions about Jesus that had been in circulation over all that time, in different languages (at least Aramaic and Greek) in different places in different contexts.” Of course I agree with you that much of their sources were oral but you’re not discounting written tradition, are you?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 14, 2014
No, of course not! But even with earlier written sources (Q, e.g.) one has to ask: whence did they derive their materials? From the oral traditions!
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 9, 2014
How do you prove that conclusion? How does anyone know for certain that no one wrote down what Christ said immediately upon hearing his words?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 9, 2014
History is a matter of probabilities, not certainties. Given what we know about literacy in Roman Palestine, it is *extremely* unlikely that Jesus’ followers could write. And given what we know about ancient speech writing, it is extremely unlikely that the later accounts of Jesus’ words were produced from hand-written notes.
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 15, 2014
“The assertion that Jesus is God is arguably the single most important development in Western civilization.” Dr. Bart
I think history is fixed. I believe you are right that history is also probabilities. We simply can’t look back and see everything.
Pretend jesus was god for a moment. It is probable he would make certain his message would become available to as many as possible and that it would be presented accurately. Look at the great mind of that little old S.O.B. saul/paul. What a complete jerk! Yet, he was brilliant, educated, articulate and was prolific, There is no evidence that among his many followers, no one besides him could write. Dr. Bart, if he had chosen you to follow him, wouldn’t you somehow find the means to record his words? I do not think it is an intellectually sound position to take that no one recorded what he said soon after he spoke. They gave up their lives for him/his cause. They valued what he said and did more than their own lives and the lives of their families and loved ones. They weren’t dull. They knew, obviously, that they had to preserve his teachings, his sermons, his parables if they were to advance his cause for future generations. How could they possibly not know how critical that was?
prestonp September 15, 2014
But Dr., look at what you’ve just said here. “History is a matter of probabilities, not certainties.” Then, “Given what we KNOW about literacy in Roman Palestine, it is *extremely* unlikely that Jesus’ followers could write.” You’ve just said we can’t “know” and then add, what we “know”.
“And given what we KNOW about ancient speech writing…” same thing.
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 15, 2014
We can know probabilities. You can “know” that if you sit down in your favorite chair, it won’t collapse and kill you. But in fact it’s only a probability.
prestonp September 15, 2014
Paul wrote and he could read. If he could, I think it is highly likely others who were very close to Christ could read and write, as well. I don’t think it is a stretch. Paul wasn’t exactly corned beef, either; he was a brilliant writer up there with guys like you. How could he do it and the probability that no one else could be “extremely” unlikely?
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 15, 2014
Yes, he was one of the urban educated elite among the early Christians. Unlike, e.g., Jesus’ disciples, who were rural illiterate peasants.
prestonp September 16, 2014
Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there” (15:40-41).
We do know that some folks contributed to Jesus and his disciples. Luke tells us that certain wealthy women helped them out: “some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means” (8:2-3).
Where do we find that none of his followers came from urban areas? Let’s keep open minds. If only 1% of that population was literate, that is a thousand people-based on a pop of 100,000.
“string theory” which is supported by many top physicists, requires more than 10 dimensions to work. Let’s not limit our mindset to the mundane. God, if he exists, can do miracles
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 16, 2014
I don’t think any of those women were educated — very few women were, even if they married rich husbands. And the men were drawn from rural areas.
prestonp September 17, 2014
Say it was extremely unlikely, it was possible. Not all of his followers were rural, either. Thousands followed him. Thousands heard him. Multitudes ate food prepared miraculously by him. Some drank superb wine he made on the spot. Many were healed. He brought the dead back to life– right before their eyes. Kings wanted to meet him.
It did not require a genius to write and to record the words someone spoke. Btw, the jews were and are the smartest, most gifted people intellectually ever, anywhere, bar none.
prestonp September 17, 2014
“Given what we KNOW about literacy in Roman Palestine…” Dr. Bart.
What we don’t know is how many of his disciples were from the cities. We don’t know that every rural follower was incapable of writing.
What we know is that there is no proof that his disciples didn’t write the original documents that became the new testament. The odds are excellent that they did. They died, willingly, because they knew him and his cause and they were responsible for ensuring the world heard it. They would not give up everything for a walk in the park. Remember, too, that they thought his second appearance would occur any moment and they were instructed to go into every corner of the world with his message. Any way they could reach humanity with his message was utilized.
Only 60 years later, somebody wrote those things, according to criticism. What changed so drastically in 60 years, you know?
prestonp September 18, 2014
“Some women were watching from a distance” pp
“I don’t think any of those women were educated — very few women were, even if they married rich husbands. And the men were drawn from rural areas.” Dr. B.
They could afford to hire those who could record what he said. pp
“Unlike, e.g., Jesus’ disciples, who were rural illiterate peasants.” Dr. B.
That is not a statement of fact. Some peasants could read and write and not all his followers were peasants.
Malcolm X taught himself to read in prison by memorizing a dictionary.
The novelist Nicholas Delbanco taught himself to read at age six during a transatlantic crossing by studying a book about boats
Fermi initially chose mathematics as his major, but soon switched to physics. He remained largely self-taught, studying general relativity, quantum mechanics, and atomic physics.
Walter Pitts was an important logician and mathematician who made significant contributions to the cognitive sciences, psychology, artificial intelligence, and the generative sciences. As a boy growing up in Detroit, Pitts read works like Principia Mathematica to learn logic and math, and he also taught himself Greek and Latin at just 10 years old.
George Washington never went to school but was taught by his brother and father at home.
Truman Capote
Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss (Gauß) (April 30, 1777 – February 23, 1855) was a German mathematician, astronomer and physicist with a very wide range of contributions; he is considered to be one of the leading mathematicians of all time.
Gauss was born in Braunschweig, Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg (now part of Germany) as the only son of lower-class uneducated parents.
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 18, 2014
Why don’t you read about what we know about literacy in the ancient world? I think I’ve already indicated the books that represent the best scholarship.
prestonp September 19, 2014
“Unlike, e.g., Jesus’ disciples, who were rural illiterate peasants.”
Dr., as we pursue truth with all we are capable of, this, your airtight conclusion, isn’t indicative of your best scholarly reasoning, imo.
I am reading Dr. I am. I am. And you are an amazing writer. So easy and enjoyable to read. So articulate. So knowledgeable. So good at making the complex understandable to your average boob like me.
I don’t think a wanna be writer of a gospel omitted his name, like Jehoshaphat, because he was concerned about a lack of name recognition. At that point, who knew who Paul, John, Luke, Mark and Matt were? Nobody.
If you haven’t already, let me recommend that you try Don Diego Cigars. At 14, when my folks took off for the shore, (I would swipe a handful from Dad’s humidor) immediately half the town raced up our driveway. I called the liquor store where they had an account, try to imitate my father and order gallons of vodka. “Oh, and if no one’s home when you get here, just leave the boxes under the light between the 2 garages.” It worked brilliantly until they handed me the bill.
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 19, 2014
Ah, the bill. I used to sneak my dad’s cigars too, but now I know they were truly awful. Marsh Wheelings. Wouldn’t touch them if they were the last cigars on earth…
prestonp September 20, 2014
Ah, the bill. I used to sneak my dad’s cigars too, but now I know they were truly awful. Marsh Wheelings. Wouldn’t touch them if they were the last cigars on earth…
As a man who seems to enjoy a fine cigar, I thought a Don Diego might hit the spot.
BrianUlrich August 13, 2014
I love this topic idea, as difficult as it sounds to execute. There seems a tendency to treat that 30-40 years as a black box in which all manner of things are happening to reshape the tradition without any clear idea of the historical context in which various actors were doing the reshaping.
For a comparative perspective, you might consider getting to know Sean Anthony, a historian of early Islam who works with similar issues in a very different source environment – later sources, but much more knowledge of the historical context and agents shaping them. I blogged about his dissertation book (http://bjulrich.blogspot.com/2012/07/tales-of-ibn-saba.html) concerning the evolution of an account of Shi’ite origins following the death of Ali, which represented a failed apocalyptic hope. He’s also worked on the material surrounding the life of Muhammad and published a book on crucifixion in Late Antiquity.
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 9, 2014
BrianUlrich, “There seems a tendency to treat that 30-40 years as a black box…” We treat that period of time as if we know for certain that none of Christ’s words had been recorded immediately after he said them and therefore no copies of those non-existent original documents were made and circulated.
We don’t know that. There is no scientific proof of that. Common sense dictates that a number of people likely began writing down his words right after he spoke them. His followers were eager to spread the news about this guy long before he was murdered. He had to tell them over and over not to tell others about his miracles (he could have been crushed by the enormous crowds before completing his work). Yet, they did anyway. (So much for the “no free-will” argument.) Many people may have recorded those events through various time periods of his ministry which may have been combined later. Some may have been used as a source to write a portion of Q. Others for john. We just don’t know; we cannot state as factual, precisely, what took place.
Verse 1. – Forasmuch as many have taken in hand. The Greek in which St. Luke’s Gospel is written is generally pure and classical, but the language of the little introduction (verse 1-4) is especially studied and polished, and contrasts singularly with the Hebrew character of the story of the nativity, which immediately follows. St, Luke here, in this studied introduction, follows the example of many of the great classical writers, Latin as well as Greek. Thucydides, Herodotus, Livy, for instance, paid special attention to the opening sentences of their histories. The many early efforts to produce a connected history of the life and work of the great Master Christ are not, as some have supposed, alluded to here with anything like censure, but are simply referred to as being incomplete, as written without order or arrangement. They most probably formed the basis of much of St. Luke’s own Gospel. These primitive Gospels quickly disappeared from sight, as they evidently contained nothing more than what was embodied in the fuller and more systematic narratives of the “four.” Of those things which are most surely believed among us. There was evidently no questioning in the Church of the first days about the truth of the story of the teaching and the mighty works of Jesus of Nazareth. It was the incompleteness of these first evangelists, rather than their inaccuracy, which induced St. Luke to take in hand a new Gospel.
Pulpit Commentary
Luke, 1 “Seeing that many did take in hand to set in order a narration of the matters that have been fully assured among us, who from the beginning became eye-witnesses, and officers of the Word, — it seemed good also to me, having followed from the first after all things exactly, to write to thee in order, most noble Theophilus, that thou mayest know the certainty of the things wherein thou wast instructed.” Young’s Literal Translation
Log in to Reply
spiker February 17, 2015
@prestonp
“We don’t know that. There is no scientific proof of that. Common sense dictates that a number of people likely began writing down his words right after he spoke them”
First there’s no need for scientific proof of something that seems to be; particularly since the
person in question seems to be offering his personal opinion.
Why the switch, Prestonp? Why does Brian’s opinion require scientific proof while yours only requires “common sense” Why is it that someone in a largely illiterate society would find it
common sensical to do something literate? And to steal from Bart, if it was comon sensical for
people to begin writing down his words right after he spoke them, why didn’t common sense dictate
their preservation?
Log in to Reply
TJDonahue August 13, 2014
So exciting! Can’t wait – great choice of topics!! Clearly this gap between Jesus’ death and our first surviving records is key. Hopefully you might touch on whether you find evidence for whether there were non-surviving written records during that period too.
In same period, I am thinking a lot about the importance of Paul on Christianity as a whole and the fact that he tells us he didn’t speak to any apostles or eyewitnesses for many years, but somehow formed a very full belief and understanding of what he felt was proper doctrine regarding Jesus. As perhaps the most important early mover in Christianity – it seems he pulled his entire teachings from his revelation (which he never mentions) and presumably from other early Christians he spoke to.
I wonder if you have thoughts on h
Log in to Reply
TJDonahue August 13, 2014
Whoops sorry – to continue: I wonder if you have thoughts for a post on this topic of how Paul almost single handedly left us with the earliest Christian doctrine? Thanks again!
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 14, 2014
I believe I’ve posted on that before!
Log in to Reply
JRH February 22, 2015
I would like to know more about how Paul went from persecuting Christians to becoming one. Was Paul responsible for anyone getting crucified? How many Christians died on account of Paul? How long did it take for Paul to convince the remaining apostles that he had converted? I get the impression in Acts that other followers of Jesus were rather cool towards Paul. (Which is quite understandable.) What happened on the road to Damascus? Heat exhaustion, hallucinations, extreme guilt? Was Paul really a “tent maker?” This sounds like a rather mundane job for someone who basically created a religion based on the life of Jesus. How likely is it a tent maker would be literate? Maybe Paul owned a tent making company instead of doing the work himself.
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart February 23, 2015
I’d suggest that you read some books about Paul, maybe starting with the recent one written by my friend Albert Harrill.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 14, 2014
Paul was certainly in contact with other Christians from the very beginning, and that must have been his source of information. He did not meet up with any of the other apostles for three years, that’s true; and by then he evidently had a clear idea of what the crucial Gospel message was. But I don’t think he made it all up himself.
Log in to Reply
z8000783 August 13, 2014
So it looks like your going to be right up against Bauckham and Jesus and the Eyewitnesses on this one then. Will look forward to that.
Usual 2 years before sales though?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 14, 2014
The *plan* is to have it appear in about two years from now, assuming I can write it by then!
Log in to Reply
qaelith2112 August 13, 2014
Fantastic!! I share your excitement. Once again, as with “How Jesus Became God”, you have put me in a position of feeling as if I were again a child anticipating Christmas, feeling as if an eternity spans now and that time. This is yet another of those periods of some mystery which I have wanted more color to be added to the sparse bits that I know. As a non-scholar, I don’t really have reasonable access to what has been written about this as little of it trickles into popular publications and I only ever end up reading a very tiny handful of books meant for scholars and none of the journals (though would any of these be worth my while to subscribe to? I’d love to know).
Suggestion — the recently late Maurice Casey might be one of the very few non-fundamentalist/non-conservative/non-evangelical scholars who propose relatively early dates for Mark and Matthew — though he remains mainstream for Luke and John. He has a chapter in his final book, “Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?” laying out his argument. He may simply be reiterating the arguments of James Crossley (he mentions Crossley a few times) — and Crossley has advocated early dating on the same basic premises and has written at least one book on it which I haven’t read. I’m thinking Crossley isn’t a conservative either, having been another to have debated William Lane Craig on the resurrection. In short, while I’m not sure what to make of this particular argument for early dating (I accept the mainstream dating but see this argument as interesting), I’d really love to see a more qualified critical treatment of it.
Log in to Reply
MilkyWay August 13, 2014
This is a fantastic next book idea! One of the most interesting things I found in some of your books are about the oral tradition. In one you talked about Paul’s earliest letter, 1 Thessalonians, and although it was written around 50 (?) there was a part that was likely in oral tradition for at least a decade before.
Please stress the fact that although those gospel’s date to 70-95 we don’t have those originals. The earliest copy on the Gospel of Mark is from about 250 CE. For some reason I think people believe we have the original copies!
Log in to Reply
Matilda
Matilda August 13, 2014
Sounds great. I like to think of things like this in terms of a kaleidoscope where the parts are the same but change around to form different patterns. I think this happens with language, with ideas like religious ones, and well, with life itself. I’m so glad you are here doing the work Bart.
Log in to Reply
toddfrederick August 13, 2014
Regarding you proposed book on oral tradition…that issue is perhaps the #1 topic of interest to me. I will look forward to your book and hope you will share some of its progress as you research and write it. Thank you.
Log in to Reply
KenUmbach August 13, 2014
Another book I look forward to!
Log in to Reply
Robertus August 13, 2014
“But almost everyone agrees that Mark dates to around the end of the Jewish War (66-70 CE). The ***only ones*** who consistently have argued otherwise are fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals, who very much want Mark, our earliest Gospel, to be closer to the time of Jesus.”
Maurice Casey must be rolling over in his grave right about now. Obviously, practically no critical exegetes agreed with him, but Maurice was certainly no evangelical fundametalist.
“Matthew and Luke then were probably somewhere between these two (since they used Mark and must date after 70 CE, but seem to be older than John and so ***must*** be earlier than 90 CE) – so say 80 or 85 CE.
There’s a growing view among scholars that Luke might have been considerably later and Brent Nongbri’s work on p52 has eliminated a frequently misused reason for dating of the gospel of John to the first century.
Log in to Reply
Josephsluna August 13, 2014
yes that is very important
like for example if it was written by the wittness them selves there would be no confusion from
when jesus was with them he can say one thing with body language but the author has written or displayed
different from the true positive intention. and as well as text take out the emotion of what jesus what feeling, but by words we are to interpret what he was saying words that trigger emotions
lets take the last supper have not researched ” the disciple ? that stated ” surley you don’t mean me ”
ok if jesus was looking at him he found out then,
and we would know thee true story just off that one line by adding body language and emotion.
and we wouldn’t need to have found the jospel of judas just another example of why it is important that we interpret thee closet we can to the original wittness accounts
Log in to Reply
doug August 13, 2014
I wonder how much accurate info about Jesus survived, given that most of his ministry was in small towns, there were no microphones to help people hear what he was saying, and probably few who saw and/or heard him thought at the time that he was a prophet, much less the messiah. And it’s doubtful that anyone was taking notes at the time. Altho I wonder when someone first began writing down info about Jesus’ life and teachings (as opposed to writing about theology – he died for our sins, he rose from the dead, he’s coming back, etc.).
Log in to Reply
TrevorN August 13, 2014
In “telephone” the message (or “signal”) gets passed linearly from ear to mouth to ear to mouth. Forty years of that would lead to enormous changes in the signal text as anyone who has played “telephone” will attest. This probably isn’t a good analogy though because the first century traditions came from multiple sources – there were many competing signals.
In one way this is far better than “telephone”, because differences in the signal text can be easily picked up by comparison and outlier signals identified and discarded. That’s when the motivation of the receptors is to keep the signal pure. But of course there is a competing motivation which operates to change the signal text even more effectively than “telephone” does. This is the motivation to tell the best possible version of the message, the one which is more persuasive or more dramatic.
In the marketplace of alternative tellings of the story, the “most accurate” account is likely to lose ground to the “most memorable”.
Log in to Reply
JTShaw August 13, 2014
Do you anticipate engaging with April DeConick’s ideas about oral traditions? I found her take on the Gospel of Thomas (“a rolling corpus, or aggregate of sayings that represent different moments in the life and
history of the early Thomasine community”) pretty persuasive. She strikes me as one of the sharpest scholars working in the area.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
Yes, I find her views of Thomas interesting as well.
Log in to Reply
Josephsluna August 13, 2014
One more question
Was this verse referring to thee ebonite’s beliefs ?
If there is a physical body and then there is a spiritual body
Jesus as a host of Christ right comes and goes when? Is the question ? How is the thee question ?
Heavenly man and earthly man sounds like a host to me
Or possibly or Poseidon and zeus or
Jesus is immortal and Christ comes and goes as mortal lol
Just theories of mine freedom of speech
I believe in zeus I’m just interpreting the authors is all.
question on 1 corinthians 15?
( alpha omega ? ) one stays and one leaves and comes back ? lol )
1 corinthians 15 ? ( as one always stays and one leaves and comes back? alpha omega ?)
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
I don’t think the Ebionites were in existence at the time that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.
Log in to Reply
kidron August 21, 2014
The church in Jerusalem under James was obviously in existence … weren’t they called the ‘poor ones’ or ebonites?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 21, 2014
In the second century there was a group (or more than one group) who called themselves the Ebionites, and they claimed to descend from that church in Jerusalem under James.
Log in to Reply
magpie August 13, 2014
YIPPEE! Can’t wait to find out what your thoughts are. Don’t forget to add in what I call the “fiddle factor” – we humans rarely can leave “well enough ” alone. It is why grown women cut up perfectly good lengths of colorful fabric into smaller pieces, rearrange the pieces then sew them back together again losing a quarter inch along each side of each piece to form visually pleasing new fabric. Then they add in “embellishments” like beads, buttons and lace. A whole industry has grown up around this human tendency that had its logical beginning in saving and re-using salvageable pieces of cloth. Yup, I quilt.
Story telling follows similar patterns and seeks agency, preferably magical and mysterious , behind each tale. It is perhaps an instinct to find novel stimulation for our brains. It is why we tell ghost stories around a campfire at night, why fantasy and science fiction are written and read. It is how humans deal with the balance between the desire to be “certain” about how life is to be lived and explained with the desire to go one step beyond and see what happens if a novel thought or process is introduced. It is how people figure out how to get others to go along with them, to take on power over others. How can I get another to do as I wish them to, by reasoning, or by fear and intimidation? How do I best convince others to see things my way or to do my bidding? It is why humans find ritual comforting but still rebel against it. Such a colorful tapestry we humans weave and then constantly revise.
Log in to Reply
magpie August 14, 2014
On re-reading my comment this morning, I can see that it appears to be a non-sequitur . I do not have the depth of knowledge that most of the other members have about early Christianity as I have just begun to read about the origins of this religion. However, my comment is based on a lifetime of observation. The gist of the above comment was meant to be that in addition to the problems of accurately repeating oral traditions by multiple well-intentioned individuals is the inclination to “fix” the story to make its points “clearer” to its audience. We all do this, mostly without any intent to deceive. There is no better example of this than the current state of US political discourse.
Log in to Reply
Adam0685 August 13, 2014
Fascinating!
With respect to history of oral tradition about Jesus as evidenced in the NT, since Paul wrote before the gospels (it seems a lot of Christians forget this!) a discussion of what Paul knew (and appeared to not know: the many parables in the gospels? the miracle stories? etc.) when he wrote could shed some light on the oral tradition that was circulating in his part of the world. I imagine, given his education and travels, he knew more oral traditions than the average Christian. Yet, what he appears to have known is less than the Gospels and the gospels oral and written sources, which were not written that long after him! Seems like oral tradition was fragmented by time and the space/place they were told. And then there’s the tradition in the apostolic fathers that is not in the NT. Very perplexing stuff!
Log in to Reply
Loring Prest August 13, 2014
Your comments about studying memory issues reminded me (!) of a RadioLab I heard on NPR lately. I know it’s not like a scholarly tome, but for a lightweight listen, go to: http://www.radiolab.org/story/91569-memory-and-forgetting/. I found it very interesting; and it challenged many of my views about memory. I was especially struck by the part where they discuss how the more you recall a memory, the more you change it. In terms of the transmission of oral traditions, this might be worth investigating.
Log in to Reply
fwhiting August 13, 2014
Professor Ehrman: This sounds like a fascinating project. I’ve often wondered where the stories associated with Jesus came from–not just those that made it into the Bible, but the nontraditional legends such as the one describing Jesus as a child fashioning birds out of clay and then turning them loose to fly away. Why did that one not make it into the scriptures while other miraculous events such as turning water into wine, healing the sick and raising the dead *were* included?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
Good question! (My sense is that that story came to be invented later)
Log in to Reply
SJB August 13, 2014
Prof Ehrman
Are you interested in looking at the development of modern messianic movements as part of your research? If so you might find the case of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson interesting. Apparently his followers believed he was the Messiah before he died and since his death in 1994 the messianic fervor has increased and his movement has developed in some interesting ways that even seem to roughly parallel early Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad_messianism
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
Yes I am! And at Pentecostal faith healers and … others!
Log in to Reply
shakespeare66 August 13, 2014
So your argument might take the shape of how it is that Jesus came to be “more” than he was given the fact that his was just a historical “blip” on the world of ancient Judea/Palastinia or whatever it was called at the time ( probably two different names given that the Jews had one name and the Romans another)?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
More, and different.
Log in to Reply
johndash
johndash August 13, 2014
Great. I am so glad you are digging into that. Those sections are the best parts of all three versions of “How Jesus Became God;” and it sent me studying up on Philippi, who the people were who lived there and why and how they would have responded to Paul quoting that “carmen Christi.” And I had to read R.P. Martin’s book, and the appropriate pages of the later edition. You are an expensive scout leader, Dr. Ehrman. But it sure is interesting.
John Dash
Fairport, NY
Log in to Reply
mahass August 13, 2014
Dr. Ehrman,
Will you be engaging with/critiquing Richard Bauckham’s argument/s in “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”? I know his views are not accepted by all scholars, but I have yet to find a sustained engagement with them (thought that may be because I have not looked hard enough).
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
Yes indeed!!
Log in to Reply
RonaldTaska August 14, 2014
It is always good to see your passion about “Christianity in Antiquity” and, as always, I look forward to reading what you learn. Considering 40 years of the telephone game in different places and in different languages, it’s astounding to me that the Gospels resemble each other as much as they do. Why? I guess the use of Mark as a source by the other Gospel authors is one explanation and maybe the lack of very many sources is another explanation. I still would like for you to explain the dating of the Gospels.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
Yes, the issue of sources is the key.
Log in to Reply
ddrtessier August 14, 2014
Will you be referencing or addressing the position that Richard Bauckham has taken on this topic?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
Yes indeed!
Log in to Reply
Steefen August 14, 2014
Dr. Bart Ehrman
But what I’m interested in now is getting deeper (and deeper) into the questions raised by this reality that the Gospel writers inherited their stories from people who inherited them from others who had passed along what had been circulating almost exclusively by word of mouth – for decades!
Steefen:
A non-authentic letter of Paul, Ephesians, states “put on the full armor of God.”
There is a coin, possibly of Julius Caesar’s armor on a cross.
Google: Coin of Julius Caesar’s armor then click Images.
Julius Caesar’s death included betrayal by Brutus. Jesus’ death included betrayal by Judas.
We have a template of Jesus, defied, in Julius Caesar, deified.
Rome incorporated other religions into its culture. Rome also got involved with Judaism. When Josephus declared a Flavian family member, messiah and with the Star Prophecy, such a sign of Jesus–with the Star Prophecy usurped by a Roman historian as well as Josephus; and with Vespasian healing a blind man with saliva similar to the way the New Testament makes an account of Jesus healing a blind man with saliva; Clement an apostolic father(?); and Domitian not waiting to be deified after death, hence, the Living God of Revelation, historically associated with the term “Lord and God”, his priests wearing gold crowns and white robes like the saints in Revelation: Rome also got involved with Christianity.
What writings do we have of the cults of deified emperors? As soon as Rome came at the call of Jerusalem, 1st century BCE, it probably saw, with the Maccabes, Judaism needed to become less militant. How did Rome infiltrate Judaism, the religion? Rome’s Quindecimviri Sacris Faciundis, regulator of foreign cults in Rome, was a think tank for decades on this problem.
If the symbol on the coin of Julius Caesar’s armor was an icon in the Julius Caesar cult’s rituals or if Julius Caesar’s death was re-enacted by his cult, with Mark Anthony (wait)
In Roman Imperial cult, the flamen Divi Iulii was the priest of the divinised Julius Caesar,[1] and the fourth of the so-called flamines maiores (the archpriests of the Roman flaminates) to be created. The new flaminate was established in by the Roman senate in 42 BC, as part of Caesar’s consecration as a divus (divinity of the Roman State) two years after his assassination. Caesar had, in his lifetime, been the recipient of unofficial, divine cult from his supporters, and had designated Mark Antony to serve as his priest.
with Mark Anthony as the precursor to Mark the gospel writer, then, yes, there was a tradition of a deified man with cross icon, betrayed by a friend, pierced in the side.
Julius Caesar’s cross had armor, Jesus only had cloth around his hips. Caesar’s cross was to hold armor, power, strength.
Log in to Reply
Scott F August 14, 2014
Sounds fantastic! I have been waiting for a book such as this for a long time!
Log in to Reply
TrevorN August 14, 2014
I seem to have a comment locked in moderation, although I can’t imagine how it could have been deemed offensive or inappropriate!
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
Really? I’m not sure what the comment was — maybe it disappeared into the electornic stratosphere. Could you try again?
Log in to Reply
gabilaranjeira August 15, 2014
Hi,
In ancient communities, was there a figure specifically in charge of telling stories or was the passing of traditions a more promiscuous process?
Thanks!
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
No, like today, just about anyone who wanted to tell a story was able to do so.
Log in to Reply
z8000783 August 15, 2014
Something Bauckham would disagree with it seems. The disciples and their disciple were the keeps of the tradition it appears.
Is there evidence to confirm this one way or the other?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
Yes, I will be addressing Bauckham’s views head-on!
Log in to Reply
gabilaranjeira August 16, 2014
Ooooops… I don’t know who Bauckham is… I guess I need to find out!
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 17, 2014
Or not. :-)
z8000783 August 15, 2014
Great. It would be good to see some foretasters of that on the blog perhaps.
Log in to Reply
kidron August 21, 2014
It would seem that of particular importance is ‘WHOSE oral tradition’ is acceptable as preserving the teachings of Jesus. As you note the gospel writers did not live in Palestine and wrote in Greek, not Aramaic. In dating the first gospel at the end of the Jewish/Roman war, those who carried the most legitimate oral tradition of Jesus no longer existed in Jerusalem.
The main source of oral tradition available to the gospel writers were therefore among the churches established by Paul. Thus it is inevitable that the stories of Jesus were strongly influencd by the theology preached and accepted by these churches … mostly attributable to Paul who made no secret of his antagonism to James the brother of Jesus who most likely reflected the teachings of his brother.
I have to suspect that many of the stories about Jesus were told to reflect the teachings of Paul. For example the story of Jesus designation the bread and wine as symbolic of his flesh and blood … totally insonsistent with a Jewish Jesus who kept the Mosaic Law. I think that you can add stories of Jesus eating with prostitutes and tax collectors as Pauline influenced. Add to this. the stories of Jesus reaching out to the Gentiles … this is from the oral traditions about Paul whose life work was to reach out to the Gentiles. Jesus was a Jew and I seriously doubt that Paul was. From his own claims he was born a Roman citizen (probably of Herodian lineage) and at best could claim to be a Hebrew or Benjaminite.
If there is any oral tradition that is independent of Paul it probably came from the “Judaizers’ from Jerusalem who visited Paul’s.congregations.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 21, 2014
My view is that there was not one or two streams of oral tradition, but thousands. Everyone who told stories about Jesus — which almost by definition would be everyone who talked about him, i.e., every Christian on the planet — was passing along (or inventing) traditions.
Log in to Reply
Luke9733 August 22, 2014
I’ve often wondered about the two different “Feeding of the Multitudes” stories in Mark (and also Matthew, the feeding of the 5,000 and the lesser known feeding of the 4,000. I know you wouldn’t say the event happened, but do you think those two stories originally started out as just one story and eventually was passed on enough times that there came to be multiple versions of it, and so Mark was recording two different versions of the same story (possibly thinking they were different stories)?
Side note: if that really was what happened with that story, would indicate that Mark probably heard the story from two different people – each one giving him different details?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 23, 2014
Yes, this kind of doubling of a story is known as a “doublet.” It is usually thought that two versions of the same story were in circulation, and Mark heard them both, without realizing they were simply alternative versions of the same thing.
Log in to Reply
Luke9733 August 26, 2014
I can’t remember if you included it or not, but if you didn’t, that might have been an interesting point to make in “Did Jesus Exist”. I don’t know how a Mythicist would explain away both feeding of the multitude stories if they assume that Mark was the originator of these stories (though I have to admit, their imagination never ceases to amaze me). Those two stories alone serve as very strong evidence that Mark must have had sources for what he was writing. Is there a Mythicist explanation for this at all even?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 26, 2014
I don’t think mythicists have a problem with Mark basing his stories on oral traditions, except if they want to argue (I can remember if anyone does) that Mark himself was the one who made everything up.
Log in to Reply
Luke9733 August 27, 2014
I think that Richard Carrier argues that. The way he puts it is that Mark “euhemerized” Jesus the celestial being. His argument is (and I’m not making this up!) that before Mark, Jesus was thought of as a celestial being who was crucified by demons (or the devil) in the lower heavens just below the moon. Mark (he argues) was just writing a historicized version placing this celestial being on Earth and it just so happened to catch on.
I don’t know if anyone else argues that. I also don’t know how in the world he reached that conclusion. If you YouTube “Richard Carrier: The Historicity of Jesus”, you can watch him give a lecture in which he over-simplifies complicated matters, quotes passages out of context (or skips over large, important sections), and (in my own opinion) takes advantage of the fact that most people in the audience probably weren’t familiar with the actual details about he was talking about.
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 27, 2014
Wow. Well, what can I say? Pretty amazing.
discens September 8, 2014
Two comparisons which might be relevant to your project (well, the first based on a counterfactual):
https://twitter.com/nonstampNSC/status/498318951676268545
http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/jesus-christ-vs-sathya-sai-baba/
Would you be interested in commenting on the first of them at least, and especially on the statement “the gospels… were written exclusively by Jesus’ supporters”?
Thank you for your attention and congratulations on your stimulating blog.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 8, 2014
I’d be happy to address an issue of you want to raise it yourself (I’m afraid I don’t have time to be looking up other blogs/twitters/ and so on . Wish I did!)
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 9, 2014
“And having gone on thence a little, he saw James of Zebedee, and John his brother, and they were in the boat refitting the nets, 20 and immediately he called them, and, having left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, they went away after him.”
“hired servants” maybe they weren’t as low class as we think
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 21, 2014
As a pretty awful, underemployed, mistake prone, christian biased troublemaker/scribe, let me change 2 words from Dr. Bart’s original text: “Those of us who do believe in the Bible can still learn from it. It is a book that deserves to be read and studied, not just as a document of faith but also as a historical record of the thoughts, beliefs, experiences, activities, loves, hates, prejudices and opinions of people who stand at the very foundation of our civilization and culture. It can help us think about the big issues of life—why we are here, what we should be doing, what will become of this world. It can inspire us—and warn us—by its examples. It can urge us to pursue truth, to fight oppression, to work for justice, to insist on peace. It can motivate us to live life more fully while yet we can. It can encourage us to live more for others and not only for ourselves. There will never be a time in the history of the human race when such lessons will have become passe, when the thoughts of important religious thinkers of the past will be irrelevant for those of us living, and thinking in the present.”
Log in to Reply
JRH September 24, 2014
Dear Bart, I think a book about the oral stories regarding Jesus is a great idea. I read your book “How Jesus Became God” but it left me with a lot of questions. For example you speculate that Peter, Paul, and Mary had hallucinations in which they believed they saw the resurrected Jesus. (Really only two people because Paul had his vision later.) And one of the remaining two was a woman (Mary Magdalene.) In a pre Feminist era it would have been easy to dismiss Mary Magdalene as hysterical. That leaves only Peter. And Peter was rather hot headed himself. So how did Peter convince others that he wasn’t crazy in claiming to see the resurrected Jesus? IMO there was a lot of wishful thinking going on. Jesus’ followers wanted to believe Peter so they chose to do so. But how did they convince ordinary Jews and Gentiles? I think a big factor in the growth of Christianity was just how superstitious ancient Palestine was. I believe Josephus implies there were lots of prophets and crackpots wandering around. One of them he mentions was the “Egyptian.” This would be a good topic to write about in your book on oral traditions.
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart September 24, 2014
It’s amazing what people will believe if someone tells them what they saw, with absolute conviction! (Still today)
Log in to Reply
prestonp October 21, 2014
“IMO there was a lot of wishful thinking going on. Jesus’ followers wanted to believe Peter so they chose to do so.” JRH
Perhaps it is wishful thinking to believe as you do; that they sacrificed their lives based on a desire to believe. If Pete hallucinated Christ, he would have had a sick mind. No indications of that historically. About 500 had the same hallucination and many were alive to discuss it when Luke wrote his accounts.
It requires more faith to believe the new testament doesn’t describe Christ than to believe it does. One has to work extremely hard to try to do away with its claims.
Log in to Reply
JRH September 24, 2014
A couple more questions: I have heard that the gospel of Matthew was aimed at the Jews in an attempt to convert some of them. If this is true why was Matthew written in Greek instead of Hebrew?
Also I read a book once called “Dating Acts.” The author argued for a date in the early 2d century for Acts. He basically argued that Christians and Jews are clearly distinguished in Acts and that an earlier date for Acts did not allow enough time for the two religions to separate. What do you think of this idea?
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart September 24, 2014
I don’t think any of the Gospels were written for outsiders. These are “insider” books — written for Christians. They were written in Greek because Hebrew was not an active language at the time, and the authors were not living in Palestine in any event.
I think you’re referring to the book by Richard Pervo. He’s very smart and has read everything on the topic. But I disagree on his dating of Acts. I think it is probably first century.
Log in to Reply
JRH September 24, 2014
Bart, another idea for your oral history book. Apollonius of Tyana. You mention him in “How Jesus Became God” and note the similarities with the story of Jesus. Given that Apollonius seems to have been born only 20 years after Jesus and lived only a few hundred miles away in Turkey, it would be interesting to know who plagiarized whom. Did the followers of Apollonius steal the myths that grew up around Jesus? Or did the followers of Jesus steal from Apollonius? Or is it possible some of these myths predated both these men? Given that Apollonius lived to around 100 AD, he was around and teaching when the gospels and the letters of Paul were written. In fact Paul probably passed through Tyana on occasion. Why is Paul silent regarding Apollonius and his followers when he manages to write letters to all the other religious groups in the Mediterranean?
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart September 24, 2014
My sense is that the followers of both were influenced not one by the other but by the legends and myths in wide circulation in their environment.
Log in to Reply
HistoricalChristianity September 26, 2014
“Hebrew was not an active language at the time.” — 75-80% of the Dead Sea Scrolls were in Hebrew. I can’t test the claims, but I keep seeing more indications that the use of Hebrew (at least for Jewish religious dialog) was being revived earlier than most people thought. Bivin and Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, started me looking down that path. How do you reach your conclusion?
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart September 26, 2014
I rely on experts for this kind of information. There’s a different between having a *written* language (Hebrew) and an active spoken language. The spoken language in Palestine was certainly Aramaic.
Log in to Reply
JRH September 26, 2014
Bart, You mention in “How Jesus Became God” that most scholars view the first 20 years after Jesus’ death as more important to the development of Christianity than the following two centuries. IMO the first 20 days or 20 weeks were even more important. Somehow we go from a crucified body hanging on the cross to Peter’s hallucination of the risen Jesus. Certainly Jesus could not have still been hanging on the cross when Peter had this vision. Even if the Romans left Jesus hanging there as an example to others, (maybe for three days?) at some point some slave would be tasked with disposing of the bodies for reasons of public sanitation. There is also the problem of all the phenomena mentioned in Matthew that accompany the death of Jesus: an earthquake, the sky darkening for three hours, the torn cloth in the temple, etc. And then there are the sightings of Jesus after his resurrection. Especially noteworthy is the crowd of 500 “most of whom are still alive” that Paul claims saw the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15.6.) Obviously none of this really happened. If it did other historians would have recorded such momentous events. And yet in the first few months or so I assume some of these myths originated. Luke has no problem viewing this stuff as legitimate history when he wrote Acts. And yet Luke was an intelligent, highly literate Greek. All of this would be a good topic to discuss in your upcoming book on how oral stories became the gospels.
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart September 28, 2014
Interesting points!
Log in to Reply
JRH October 17, 2014
This is a follow up to my previous post wondering about the first days and weeks after the death of Jesus. As others have noted, the stories that grew up around Jesus could have gotten started like the gossip game “Telephone.” I would like to add that the Eastern Mediterranean in ancient times was fertile ground for mythology. Just a few hundred miles from ancient Israel was Greece. Educated Jews must have been familiar with the Greek myths. In fact one could argue that Greek paganism with their quarreling family of less than omnipotent gods offered a better explanation for the chaos in the world than the omnipotent, benevolent God of the early Christians. The Hebrews had their myths too. The creation story in Genesis is a pretty good guestimate for an ancient people ignorant of cosmology and evolution. And to the east there was Babylon with the Epic of Gilgamesh. So when early Christians starting embellishing (or even inventing) stories about Jesus, they had a rich tradition of mythology to imitate.
Log in to Reply
prestonp October 21, 2014
“Obviously none of this really happened. If it did other historians would have recorded such momentous events.”
That cannot be stated as fact.
Log in to Reply
JRH October 23, 2014
Well how about this one then: “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” Matthew 27:52.
So nobody noticed all these zombies wandering around Jerusalem? Somehow it just didn’t get recorded outside of the Bible? I think it’s safe to say this never really happened and that can be stated as a fact.
Log in to Reply
Tom
Tom October 8, 2014
I sent to you an email this weekend outlining how I’m doing my best to counter the mythicist argument that Jesus never existed. I’m seeing this mindset rapidly spread particularly in my area, but a few are dis-crediting your works and asking for ‘references.’
The email is long-winded and even if you don’t have time to respond, I at least want you to know I’m doing my part to battle the mythicist mindset.
Many thanks for all your work!
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart October 9, 2014
I wish I had the hours in the day to answer all my email! So, sorry if I haven’t replied.
Log in to Reply
Tom
Tom October 15, 2014
I’m sure you receive an enormous influx of emails between fellow scholars, students, and independent researchers (as myself). -Thank you for going back and responding to my needs. Much appreciated!
I see you will be in Roanoke VA November 6th and will do my best to be at this venue (autographs, etc.).
-Tom
Log in to Reply
spiker February 17, 2015
Tom:
I don’t think DJE (or any of the rest of Bart Ehrman’s work) can be discredited. There’s a difference between claims
of discrediting something and actually doing it. Mythicism is catchy because it’s an amateur’s ideology. They seem to use their lack of expertise as a justification for inventting things. IF the question is about a historical Jesus then one needs to apply the standards historians apply (The key for you is to make sure you understand them very well and call mythicists out when they drop them in favor of whatever nonsense they are peddling: The one’s used in DJE. One doesn’t get to introduce opinion polls etc in their place.
If you carefully follow their arguments, you’ll see they lead no where.
I tend to think insinuation is the mythicists tactic of choice
Log in to Reply
spiker February 17, 2015
@ Tom
Your best bet is to ask them to make the case from primary sources. The typical mythicist is not likely to know what a primary source is nor is he willing to actually do any legwork. That’s boring!
This approach has several advantages. First it should be very easy to see why primary sources
are the best sort of evidence. Two it will probably shut the mythicist up for a few minutes
as he tries to think of a way to change the subject ( or waits for someone else to comme along) from primary sources to some variation of the wake up and smell the coffee argument.
Another advantage is this will help you see right away whether your “opponent” is serious or not. Most of them will probably tell you to go look it up. It’s their argument, if they haven’t done the leg work, they don’t know wth they are talking about. How can you not know the evidence for your own argument?
The typical mythicist likes to paddle on about how there were (whatever number they want to toss out) God’s in the Med that were born on Christmas; yet the bible (If it can be considered a primary source) says nothing about Jesus being born on Christmas. So right at the opening Salvo, you sank their battleship!
Its also instructive that Paul has such a hard time convincing people of the very idea of ressurection in an area of the world where ressurection, if you believe mythicists, was
the order of the day because, apparently people once thought vegetaion was a dying and
rising god and thus became carnivores lest the Saviour be made into a salad.
Log in to Reply
ElazarusWills October 16, 2014
The new book idea sounds facinating. My guess would be that while Mark was based mostly on oral storytelling traditions there were probably also written sources being passed around as well at the same time. Possibly mostly sayings. Someone had to be writing something about Jesus and the movement during those 40 years. But how can we even guess about something like that?
Log in to Reply
Jacobus February 11, 2015
Prof. Ehrman, what do you make of the late prof. Maurice Casey’s work? He was non-religious and yet he dated the Gospel of Mark to the Caligula “threat” of erecting a statue of Zeus in the Jerusalem temple. (If I remember correctly about 45 CE). It seems to me, though I didn’t find it clearly stated in the two books I have read, that he used a strong literary paradigm, which is obviously necessary if you want to trace certain gospels back to Aramaic sources. Some of his Aramaic reconstructions are quite convincing, it is at least on par with the reconstructions and reverting of the Gospel of Thomas back to Greek and the International Q-Project. Yet, it seems some of his views did not gain wide acceptance. Do you think that there is any value in the process of conjecturing because it seems to cross a line at some point to become speculation? How is your current research on the oral tradition going? I think it is a fascinating topic, but it seems to me that a hybrid approach to literary and an oral transmission process is just as viable and indeed possible as to just accept that transmission of the gospel tradition was reverted to writing from 70 CE. What do you make of Q for instance in relation to Mark? Is Mark a good oral text but a bad literary text? These are just some of the questions that comes to my mind. The water from 35 (or what ever date Jesus was crucified) to 65/70 CE seems quite murky. It seems for instance Rudolf Bultmann and the Form Critics are out, but what is in? The way we understand the oral/literature tradition of the “lost” years of the church (though we have at least Acts as a seemingly legendary account and Paul’s epistles to Galatians and 1 Corinthians) seems to affect the whole way in which we reconstruct the historical figure of Jesus. It affects some of the tools of the trade, such as the criteria of authenticity we use. Should one become like prof. Luke Timothy Johnson and only through your hands in the air and say that you can’t trace the historical Jesus? How would you respond for instance to Hall Tausig’s book “In the beginning was the Meal” where he argues that at love feasts or at least meals during the symposium early Christians performed the euangellion (good news) or something like it? Surely it is a bold project you are taking on, I wonder how to you conceptualise it. Good luck!
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart February 11, 2015
He was a brilliant if somewhat idiosyncratic scholar.
I’d be happy to deal with your questions, but I can really only handle one at a time. If you want to raise one in particular with me, I’d be happy to address it if I can.
Log in to Reply
Subscribe to Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search by Keyword or User Name
Bart’s Recent Posts
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015
More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015
My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015
BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015
On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015
“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015
Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015
What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015
Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015
Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015
My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015
Archives
Select Month April 2015 (19) March 2015 (27) February 2015 (21) January 2015 (22) December 2014 (26) November 2014 (23) October 2014 (23) September 2014 (26) August 2014 (26) July 2014 (25) June 2014 (25) May 2014 (42) April 2014 (42) March 2014 (39) February 2014 (37) January 2014 (45) December 2013 (45) November 2013 (40) October 2013 (45) September 2013 (42) August 2013 (44) July 2013 (48) June 2013 (45) May 2013 (40) April 2013 (43) March 2013 (44) February 2013 (43) January 2013 (52) December 2012 (46) November 2012 (44) October 2012 (55) September 2012 (51) August 2012 (46) July 2012 (54) June 2012 (51) May 2012 (38) April 2012 (18)
Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
Latest Additions
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...
More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...
One Time Donation to Foundation
Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!
This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.
Monthy Reoccuring Donations
When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112
Enter Your Donation Amount
Login
Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Register | Lost your Password?
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design
Return to Top
http://ehrmanblog.org/my-next-project/
Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users
RSS
YouTube
Google+
Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
Membership
why & how to join
Philanthropy
assist the needy
Latest Posts
member & public
Member Forum
discussions
Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers
Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogMy Next Project
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...
My Next Project
I’ve had several people ask what I’m working on, now that How Jesus Became God has come and gone from. The answer is: the very next thing! And it’s something that I’ve gotten really excited about, as excited as I was about How Jesus Became God. For some reason, when I was doing that book over the past couple of years, I thought that it was going to be the climax of my trade book publishing career, and that everything would be downhill from there. I was completely wrong about that. I’m now just as passionate about the next project.
I mentioned the book earlier on the blog, before I decided for sure that it was going to be next. But it definitely is. It will be about the oral traditions of Jesus in circulation in the years before the Gospels were written.
So, just to give a bit of background — a review for some of you and new information for probably some others. Scholars have long held that Mark was the first of our Gospels to be written, and that it probably appeared sometime around the year 70 CE. Some scholars think it might have been a bit before that (I used to think that); more scholars think that it might have been a bit after. But almost everyone agrees that Mark dates to around the end of the Jewish War (66-70 CE). The only ones who consistently have argued otherwise are fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals, who very much want Mark, our earliest Gospel, to be closer to the time of Jesus.
Maybe some time on the blog I’ll explain why 70 CE seems like a plausible date. For now, let’s just say that this is the virtually consensus view among critical scholars. The last Gospel has traditionally been thought to be John, and it is normally dated to 90 or 95 CE. Matthew and Luke then were probably somewhere between these two (since they used Mark and must date after 70 CE, but seem to be older than John and so must be earlier than 90 CE) – so say 80 or 85 CE.
What is striking, and what I have long emphasized in my writings, is that time gap between the death of Jesus in 30 CE and the first accounts of his life in 70-95 CE. It’s a gap (for those who are mathematically challenged) of 40-65 years.
And so the question is, what was happening during all those years to the stories being told about Jesus? The Gospel writers themselves do not claim to have been disciples of Jesus, and do not claim to be eyewitnesses of the events they narrate, and do not claim (contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, largely by not reading the texts in question carefully enough) to have derived their stories directly from eyewitnesses. The Gospels were written anonymously, in different parts of the world from where Jesus lived, in a different language from the one Jesus used, four and more decades after Jesus died. So where did they get their stories?
They got them from oral traditions about Jesus that had been in circulation over all that time, in different languages (at least Aramaic and Greek) in different places in different contexts.
All that is well known, and I’ve written about it before.
But what I’m interested in now is…
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, go to your paid Members’ site. If you don’t belong yet, THERE IS STILL HOPE!!!
Member Content Continues:
You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
image_pdfimage_print
in
Share
.
My Future Books«
ANT: Methods of Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church»
13
AUG
2014
117
Comments
117 Comments
0 Trackbacks
toejam August 13, 2014
Sounds interesting. I do hope you tackle some of the ideas presented by scholars like Richard Bauckham. I’m half-way through his ‘Jesus & the Eyewitnesses’ at the moment. Struggling to get through it because, although he makes the occasional noteworthy point, much of it seems very speculative and dressed up to be more than it is – e.g. at one point he suggests that the reason Lazarus wasn’t mentioned in the synoptics was because the gospel writers were concealing his identity operating under some kind of witness protection program! It was at that point I realised I was reading apologetics, not cautious scholarship.
I also recently watched a debate between Richard Carrier and Zeba Crook on the historicity of Jesus. A question came up in the Q&A about the validity of the use of pre-gospel ‘oral traditions’ in attempting to reconstruct the past. Predictably, Carrier dismissed the use of oral traditions as completely untrustworthy speculation. But I was surprised that Crook too basically agreed – that even if there was a colorful oral tradition behind the gospel stories, that we really don’t have any reliable way to access them and as such it’s more or less a wild goose chase that requires a dose of circular reasoning just to get started…
Log in to Reply
Adam0685 August 15, 2014
The position about the complete untrustworthiness of oral tradition seems to also imply the complete untrustworthiness of the gospels (which I don’t think Zeba holds!), since the gospels are based on that oral tradition (unless one argues that Mark, for example, completely made up the stories he wrote or based his account on eyewitness testimony).
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 16, 2014
I think it is too much to say they are “completely” untrustworthy. If the oral tradition involved inventions of episodes and sayings of Jesus,and the alteration of historically accurate material, the task is to try to establish what is historically accurate. (Well, that’s one task, anyway)
Log in to Reply
VirtualAlex August 13, 2014
Awesome.
Log in to Reply
talitakum
talitakum August 13, 2014
Ok, so the next Clash of Titans will be Ehrman vs. Bauckham ;) Looking forward to it !
Some quick considerations about your interesting post: an early dating of Mark is not only supported/proposed by “fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals”, unless you want to count Casey (RIP) and Crossley among them.. and I don’t think it’s the case :)
Mark gospel likely used some written sources, and Luke has been explicit about such existing written material circulating at his time, moreover some scholars propose an early composition date for the core Passion’s account: these things may challenge the assumption that oral traditions have been the only/main channel for tradition. Finally, I know that scholars like Anthony LeDonne recently explored this very interesting field of studies (memory, perception, tradition) that can actually challenge the “traditional approach” of Historical Jesus scholarship. So, once again you are going to give your contribute to a modern, fascinating topic ..
Looking forward to reading more on this blog! :) Regards
Log in to Reply
TomTerrific August 13, 2014
Your new project sounds fascinating.
Are you going to try to tie it in with other cultures with oral traditions? I understand it was quite strong in the Celtic peoples, which was roughly the same time and a lot of legend is attached to their methods.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 14, 2014
Yes, the current plan (it may change!) is to talk about what we know about oral cultures from anthropologists (and others).
Log in to Reply
stephena August 13, 2014
How will your book differ from the work of the Jesus Seminar, which attempted to determine the actual words of Jesus? I find this topic you’re taking up of supreme importance because the words of Jesus are at the core of my faith, rather than the second- or third-hand stories ABOUT him.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 14, 2014
Our concerns and interests are broadly similar, but the Jesus seminar never produced a book about the oral traditions per se.
Log in to Reply
stephena August 14, 2014
Their analysis (in various colors!) of the Four Gospels and Thomas in “The Five Gospels” were close to that, though. I do wish there was a book with a detailed listing of the Logia or Sayings of Jesus that are considered “authentic” and reasons WHY they are considered so. Perhaps that will be part of this effort?
I also really, really enjoyed your translations of the non-canonical books in your “Lost Scriptures” books and wish you’d tackle the Gospels themselves (highlighting the Variants, which NO Bibles currently do) unless you feel one or more versions “get it right,” or “close enough.”
Log in to Reply
nichael August 13, 2014
For those of us waiting for these books, can I suggest two books on this topic that I’ve found both immensely informative as well as great reads (that is, “recommend” to my fellow readers; I’m sure Dr Ehrman doesn’t need any help in this area).
The first is Walter J Ong’s classic “Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word”. This book serves as a great introduction to current thought about what the transition from purely oral cultures to literate ones means. The book discusses the (often significantly) different ways by which each collect, maintain, and transmit historical and cultural information; the different views each has on what “factual truth” can mean; and, perhaps most importantly, offers insights into how our assumption about, and answers to such question –and our understanding of their importance– that we share in a modern literate society, is very much an artifact of our belonging to such a society.
The second is “Is That a Fish in Your Ear?: Translation and the Meaning of Everything” by David Bellos. The title is a touch too cute for my tastes, but this book provides a fascinating and highly enjoyable introduction to the issues involved in translation. While not directly focused on questions of literacy, it offers many insights into the technical, linguistic and cultural problems involved in transfering “meaning” from one language into another.
Log in to Reply
AlanTaylorFarnes August 13, 2014
I’m excited to read your work on oral history. You state that the oral tradition was THE source for the gospel writers: “So where did they get their stories? They got them from oral traditions about Jesus that had been in circulation over all that time, in different languages (at least Aramaic and Greek) in different places in different contexts.” Of course I agree with you that much of their sources were oral but you’re not discounting written tradition, are you?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 14, 2014
No, of course not! But even with earlier written sources (Q, e.g.) one has to ask: whence did they derive their materials? From the oral traditions!
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 9, 2014
How do you prove that conclusion? How does anyone know for certain that no one wrote down what Christ said immediately upon hearing his words?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 9, 2014
History is a matter of probabilities, not certainties. Given what we know about literacy in Roman Palestine, it is *extremely* unlikely that Jesus’ followers could write. And given what we know about ancient speech writing, it is extremely unlikely that the later accounts of Jesus’ words were produced from hand-written notes.
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 15, 2014
“The assertion that Jesus is God is arguably the single most important development in Western civilization.” Dr. Bart
I think history is fixed. I believe you are right that history is also probabilities. We simply can’t look back and see everything.
Pretend jesus was god for a moment. It is probable he would make certain his message would become available to as many as possible and that it would be presented accurately. Look at the great mind of that little old S.O.B. saul/paul. What a complete jerk! Yet, he was brilliant, educated, articulate and was prolific, There is no evidence that among his many followers, no one besides him could write. Dr. Bart, if he had chosen you to follow him, wouldn’t you somehow find the means to record his words? I do not think it is an intellectually sound position to take that no one recorded what he said soon after he spoke. They gave up their lives for him/his cause. They valued what he said and did more than their own lives and the lives of their families and loved ones. They weren’t dull. They knew, obviously, that they had to preserve his teachings, his sermons, his parables if they were to advance his cause for future generations. How could they possibly not know how critical that was?
prestonp September 15, 2014
But Dr., look at what you’ve just said here. “History is a matter of probabilities, not certainties.” Then, “Given what we KNOW about literacy in Roman Palestine, it is *extremely* unlikely that Jesus’ followers could write.” You’ve just said we can’t “know” and then add, what we “know”.
“And given what we KNOW about ancient speech writing…” same thing.
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 15, 2014
We can know probabilities. You can “know” that if you sit down in your favorite chair, it won’t collapse and kill you. But in fact it’s only a probability.
prestonp September 15, 2014
Paul wrote and he could read. If he could, I think it is highly likely others who were very close to Christ could read and write, as well. I don’t think it is a stretch. Paul wasn’t exactly corned beef, either; he was a brilliant writer up there with guys like you. How could he do it and the probability that no one else could be “extremely” unlikely?
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 15, 2014
Yes, he was one of the urban educated elite among the early Christians. Unlike, e.g., Jesus’ disciples, who were rural illiterate peasants.
prestonp September 16, 2014
Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there” (15:40-41).
We do know that some folks contributed to Jesus and his disciples. Luke tells us that certain wealthy women helped them out: “some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means” (8:2-3).
Where do we find that none of his followers came from urban areas? Let’s keep open minds. If only 1% of that population was literate, that is a thousand people-based on a pop of 100,000.
“string theory” which is supported by many top physicists, requires more than 10 dimensions to work. Let’s not limit our mindset to the mundane. God, if he exists, can do miracles
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 16, 2014
I don’t think any of those women were educated — very few women were, even if they married rich husbands. And the men were drawn from rural areas.
prestonp September 17, 2014
Say it was extremely unlikely, it was possible. Not all of his followers were rural, either. Thousands followed him. Thousands heard him. Multitudes ate food prepared miraculously by him. Some drank superb wine he made on the spot. Many were healed. He brought the dead back to life– right before their eyes. Kings wanted to meet him.
It did not require a genius to write and to record the words someone spoke. Btw, the jews were and are the smartest, most gifted people intellectually ever, anywhere, bar none.
prestonp September 17, 2014
“Given what we KNOW about literacy in Roman Palestine…” Dr. Bart.
What we don’t know is how many of his disciples were from the cities. We don’t know that every rural follower was incapable of writing.
What we know is that there is no proof that his disciples didn’t write the original documents that became the new testament. The odds are excellent that they did. They died, willingly, because they knew him and his cause and they were responsible for ensuring the world heard it. They would not give up everything for a walk in the park. Remember, too, that they thought his second appearance would occur any moment and they were instructed to go into every corner of the world with his message. Any way they could reach humanity with his message was utilized.
Only 60 years later, somebody wrote those things, according to criticism. What changed so drastically in 60 years, you know?
prestonp September 18, 2014
“Some women were watching from a distance” pp
“I don’t think any of those women were educated — very few women were, even if they married rich husbands. And the men were drawn from rural areas.” Dr. B.
They could afford to hire those who could record what he said. pp
“Unlike, e.g., Jesus’ disciples, who were rural illiterate peasants.” Dr. B.
That is not a statement of fact. Some peasants could read and write and not all his followers were peasants.
Malcolm X taught himself to read in prison by memorizing a dictionary.
The novelist Nicholas Delbanco taught himself to read at age six during a transatlantic crossing by studying a book about boats
Fermi initially chose mathematics as his major, but soon switched to physics. He remained largely self-taught, studying general relativity, quantum mechanics, and atomic physics.
Walter Pitts was an important logician and mathematician who made significant contributions to the cognitive sciences, psychology, artificial intelligence, and the generative sciences. As a boy growing up in Detroit, Pitts read works like Principia Mathematica to learn logic and math, and he also taught himself Greek and Latin at just 10 years old.
George Washington never went to school but was taught by his brother and father at home.
Truman Capote
Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss (Gauß) (April 30, 1777 – February 23, 1855) was a German mathematician, astronomer and physicist with a very wide range of contributions; he is considered to be one of the leading mathematicians of all time.
Gauss was born in Braunschweig, Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg (now part of Germany) as the only son of lower-class uneducated parents.
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 18, 2014
Why don’t you read about what we know about literacy in the ancient world? I think I’ve already indicated the books that represent the best scholarship.
prestonp September 19, 2014
“Unlike, e.g., Jesus’ disciples, who were rural illiterate peasants.”
Dr., as we pursue truth with all we are capable of, this, your airtight conclusion, isn’t indicative of your best scholarly reasoning, imo.
I am reading Dr. I am. I am. And you are an amazing writer. So easy and enjoyable to read. So articulate. So knowledgeable. So good at making the complex understandable to your average boob like me.
I don’t think a wanna be writer of a gospel omitted his name, like Jehoshaphat, because he was concerned about a lack of name recognition. At that point, who knew who Paul, John, Luke, Mark and Matt were? Nobody.
If you haven’t already, let me recommend that you try Don Diego Cigars. At 14, when my folks took off for the shore, (I would swipe a handful from Dad’s humidor) immediately half the town raced up our driveway. I called the liquor store where they had an account, try to imitate my father and order gallons of vodka. “Oh, and if no one’s home when you get here, just leave the boxes under the light between the 2 garages.” It worked brilliantly until they handed me the bill.
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 19, 2014
Ah, the bill. I used to sneak my dad’s cigars too, but now I know they were truly awful. Marsh Wheelings. Wouldn’t touch them if they were the last cigars on earth…
prestonp September 20, 2014
Ah, the bill. I used to sneak my dad’s cigars too, but now I know they were truly awful. Marsh Wheelings. Wouldn’t touch them if they were the last cigars on earth…
As a man who seems to enjoy a fine cigar, I thought a Don Diego might hit the spot.
BrianUlrich August 13, 2014
I love this topic idea, as difficult as it sounds to execute. There seems a tendency to treat that 30-40 years as a black box in which all manner of things are happening to reshape the tradition without any clear idea of the historical context in which various actors were doing the reshaping.
For a comparative perspective, you might consider getting to know Sean Anthony, a historian of early Islam who works with similar issues in a very different source environment – later sources, but much more knowledge of the historical context and agents shaping them. I blogged about his dissertation book (http://bjulrich.blogspot.com/2012/07/tales-of-ibn-saba.html) concerning the evolution of an account of Shi’ite origins following the death of Ali, which represented a failed apocalyptic hope. He’s also worked on the material surrounding the life of Muhammad and published a book on crucifixion in Late Antiquity.
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 9, 2014
BrianUlrich, “There seems a tendency to treat that 30-40 years as a black box…” We treat that period of time as if we know for certain that none of Christ’s words had been recorded immediately after he said them and therefore no copies of those non-existent original documents were made and circulated.
We don’t know that. There is no scientific proof of that. Common sense dictates that a number of people likely began writing down his words right after he spoke them. His followers were eager to spread the news about this guy long before he was murdered. He had to tell them over and over not to tell others about his miracles (he could have been crushed by the enormous crowds before completing his work). Yet, they did anyway. (So much for the “no free-will” argument.) Many people may have recorded those events through various time periods of his ministry which may have been combined later. Some may have been used as a source to write a portion of Q. Others for john. We just don’t know; we cannot state as factual, precisely, what took place.
Verse 1. – Forasmuch as many have taken in hand. The Greek in which St. Luke’s Gospel is written is generally pure and classical, but the language of the little introduction (verse 1-4) is especially studied and polished, and contrasts singularly with the Hebrew character of the story of the nativity, which immediately follows. St, Luke here, in this studied introduction, follows the example of many of the great classical writers, Latin as well as Greek. Thucydides, Herodotus, Livy, for instance, paid special attention to the opening sentences of their histories. The many early efforts to produce a connected history of the life and work of the great Master Christ are not, as some have supposed, alluded to here with anything like censure, but are simply referred to as being incomplete, as written without order or arrangement. They most probably formed the basis of much of St. Luke’s own Gospel. These primitive Gospels quickly disappeared from sight, as they evidently contained nothing more than what was embodied in the fuller and more systematic narratives of the “four.” Of those things which are most surely believed among us. There was evidently no questioning in the Church of the first days about the truth of the story of the teaching and the mighty works of Jesus of Nazareth. It was the incompleteness of these first evangelists, rather than their inaccuracy, which induced St. Luke to take in hand a new Gospel.
Pulpit Commentary
Luke, 1 “Seeing that many did take in hand to set in order a narration of the matters that have been fully assured among us, who from the beginning became eye-witnesses, and officers of the Word, — it seemed good also to me, having followed from the first after all things exactly, to write to thee in order, most noble Theophilus, that thou mayest know the certainty of the things wherein thou wast instructed.” Young’s Literal Translation
Log in to Reply
spiker February 17, 2015
@prestonp
“We don’t know that. There is no scientific proof of that. Common sense dictates that a number of people likely began writing down his words right after he spoke them”
First there’s no need for scientific proof of something that seems to be; particularly since the
person in question seems to be offering his personal opinion.
Why the switch, Prestonp? Why does Brian’s opinion require scientific proof while yours only requires “common sense” Why is it that someone in a largely illiterate society would find it
common sensical to do something literate? And to steal from Bart, if it was comon sensical for
people to begin writing down his words right after he spoke them, why didn’t common sense dictate
their preservation?
Log in to Reply
TJDonahue August 13, 2014
So exciting! Can’t wait – great choice of topics!! Clearly this gap between Jesus’ death and our first surviving records is key. Hopefully you might touch on whether you find evidence for whether there were non-surviving written records during that period too.
In same period, I am thinking a lot about the importance of Paul on Christianity as a whole and the fact that he tells us he didn’t speak to any apostles or eyewitnesses for many years, but somehow formed a very full belief and understanding of what he felt was proper doctrine regarding Jesus. As perhaps the most important early mover in Christianity – it seems he pulled his entire teachings from his revelation (which he never mentions) and presumably from other early Christians he spoke to.
I wonder if you have thoughts on h
Log in to Reply
TJDonahue August 13, 2014
Whoops sorry – to continue: I wonder if you have thoughts for a post on this topic of how Paul almost single handedly left us with the earliest Christian doctrine? Thanks again!
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 14, 2014
I believe I’ve posted on that before!
Log in to Reply
JRH February 22, 2015
I would like to know more about how Paul went from persecuting Christians to becoming one. Was Paul responsible for anyone getting crucified? How many Christians died on account of Paul? How long did it take for Paul to convince the remaining apostles that he had converted? I get the impression in Acts that other followers of Jesus were rather cool towards Paul. (Which is quite understandable.) What happened on the road to Damascus? Heat exhaustion, hallucinations, extreme guilt? Was Paul really a “tent maker?” This sounds like a rather mundane job for someone who basically created a religion based on the life of Jesus. How likely is it a tent maker would be literate? Maybe Paul owned a tent making company instead of doing the work himself.
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart February 23, 2015
I’d suggest that you read some books about Paul, maybe starting with the recent one written by my friend Albert Harrill.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 14, 2014
Paul was certainly in contact with other Christians from the very beginning, and that must have been his source of information. He did not meet up with any of the other apostles for three years, that’s true; and by then he evidently had a clear idea of what the crucial Gospel message was. But I don’t think he made it all up himself.
Log in to Reply
z8000783 August 13, 2014
So it looks like your going to be right up against Bauckham and Jesus and the Eyewitnesses on this one then. Will look forward to that.
Usual 2 years before sales though?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 14, 2014
The *plan* is to have it appear in about two years from now, assuming I can write it by then!
Log in to Reply
qaelith2112 August 13, 2014
Fantastic!! I share your excitement. Once again, as with “How Jesus Became God”, you have put me in a position of feeling as if I were again a child anticipating Christmas, feeling as if an eternity spans now and that time. This is yet another of those periods of some mystery which I have wanted more color to be added to the sparse bits that I know. As a non-scholar, I don’t really have reasonable access to what has been written about this as little of it trickles into popular publications and I only ever end up reading a very tiny handful of books meant for scholars and none of the journals (though would any of these be worth my while to subscribe to? I’d love to know).
Suggestion — the recently late Maurice Casey might be one of the very few non-fundamentalist/non-conservative/non-evangelical scholars who propose relatively early dates for Mark and Matthew — though he remains mainstream for Luke and John. He has a chapter in his final book, “Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?” laying out his argument. He may simply be reiterating the arguments of James Crossley (he mentions Crossley a few times) — and Crossley has advocated early dating on the same basic premises and has written at least one book on it which I haven’t read. I’m thinking Crossley isn’t a conservative either, having been another to have debated William Lane Craig on the resurrection. In short, while I’m not sure what to make of this particular argument for early dating (I accept the mainstream dating but see this argument as interesting), I’d really love to see a more qualified critical treatment of it.
Log in to Reply
MilkyWay August 13, 2014
This is a fantastic next book idea! One of the most interesting things I found in some of your books are about the oral tradition. In one you talked about Paul’s earliest letter, 1 Thessalonians, and although it was written around 50 (?) there was a part that was likely in oral tradition for at least a decade before.
Please stress the fact that although those gospel’s date to 70-95 we don’t have those originals. The earliest copy on the Gospel of Mark is from about 250 CE. For some reason I think people believe we have the original copies!
Log in to Reply
Matilda
Matilda August 13, 2014
Sounds great. I like to think of things like this in terms of a kaleidoscope where the parts are the same but change around to form different patterns. I think this happens with language, with ideas like religious ones, and well, with life itself. I’m so glad you are here doing the work Bart.
Log in to Reply
toddfrederick August 13, 2014
Regarding you proposed book on oral tradition…that issue is perhaps the #1 topic of interest to me. I will look forward to your book and hope you will share some of its progress as you research and write it. Thank you.
Log in to Reply
KenUmbach August 13, 2014
Another book I look forward to!
Log in to Reply
Robertus August 13, 2014
“But almost everyone agrees that Mark dates to around the end of the Jewish War (66-70 CE). The ***only ones*** who consistently have argued otherwise are fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals, who very much want Mark, our earliest Gospel, to be closer to the time of Jesus.”
Maurice Casey must be rolling over in his grave right about now. Obviously, practically no critical exegetes agreed with him, but Maurice was certainly no evangelical fundametalist.
“Matthew and Luke then were probably somewhere between these two (since they used Mark and must date after 70 CE, but seem to be older than John and so ***must*** be earlier than 90 CE) – so say 80 or 85 CE.
There’s a growing view among scholars that Luke might have been considerably later and Brent Nongbri’s work on p52 has eliminated a frequently misused reason for dating of the gospel of John to the first century.
Log in to Reply
Josephsluna August 13, 2014
yes that is very important
like for example if it was written by the wittness them selves there would be no confusion from
when jesus was with them he can say one thing with body language but the author has written or displayed
different from the true positive intention. and as well as text take out the emotion of what jesus what feeling, but by words we are to interpret what he was saying words that trigger emotions
lets take the last supper have not researched ” the disciple ? that stated ” surley you don’t mean me ”
ok if jesus was looking at him he found out then,
and we would know thee true story just off that one line by adding body language and emotion.
and we wouldn’t need to have found the jospel of judas just another example of why it is important that we interpret thee closet we can to the original wittness accounts
Log in to Reply
doug August 13, 2014
I wonder how much accurate info about Jesus survived, given that most of his ministry was in small towns, there were no microphones to help people hear what he was saying, and probably few who saw and/or heard him thought at the time that he was a prophet, much less the messiah. And it’s doubtful that anyone was taking notes at the time. Altho I wonder when someone first began writing down info about Jesus’ life and teachings (as opposed to writing about theology – he died for our sins, he rose from the dead, he’s coming back, etc.).
Log in to Reply
TrevorN August 13, 2014
In “telephone” the message (or “signal”) gets passed linearly from ear to mouth to ear to mouth. Forty years of that would lead to enormous changes in the signal text as anyone who has played “telephone” will attest. This probably isn’t a good analogy though because the first century traditions came from multiple sources – there were many competing signals.
In one way this is far better than “telephone”, because differences in the signal text can be easily picked up by comparison and outlier signals identified and discarded. That’s when the motivation of the receptors is to keep the signal pure. But of course there is a competing motivation which operates to change the signal text even more effectively than “telephone” does. This is the motivation to tell the best possible version of the message, the one which is more persuasive or more dramatic.
In the marketplace of alternative tellings of the story, the “most accurate” account is likely to lose ground to the “most memorable”.
Log in to Reply
JTShaw August 13, 2014
Do you anticipate engaging with April DeConick’s ideas about oral traditions? I found her take on the Gospel of Thomas (“a rolling corpus, or aggregate of sayings that represent different moments in the life and
history of the early Thomasine community”) pretty persuasive. She strikes me as one of the sharpest scholars working in the area.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
Yes, I find her views of Thomas interesting as well.
Log in to Reply
Josephsluna August 13, 2014
One more question
Was this verse referring to thee ebonite’s beliefs ?
If there is a physical body and then there is a spiritual body
Jesus as a host of Christ right comes and goes when? Is the question ? How is the thee question ?
Heavenly man and earthly man sounds like a host to me
Or possibly or Poseidon and zeus or
Jesus is immortal and Christ comes and goes as mortal lol
Just theories of mine freedom of speech
I believe in zeus I’m just interpreting the authors is all.
question on 1 corinthians 15?
( alpha omega ? ) one stays and one leaves and comes back ? lol )
1 corinthians 15 ? ( as one always stays and one leaves and comes back? alpha omega ?)
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
I don’t think the Ebionites were in existence at the time that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.
Log in to Reply
kidron August 21, 2014
The church in Jerusalem under James was obviously in existence … weren’t they called the ‘poor ones’ or ebonites?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 21, 2014
In the second century there was a group (or more than one group) who called themselves the Ebionites, and they claimed to descend from that church in Jerusalem under James.
Log in to Reply
magpie August 13, 2014
YIPPEE! Can’t wait to find out what your thoughts are. Don’t forget to add in what I call the “fiddle factor” – we humans rarely can leave “well enough ” alone. It is why grown women cut up perfectly good lengths of colorful fabric into smaller pieces, rearrange the pieces then sew them back together again losing a quarter inch along each side of each piece to form visually pleasing new fabric. Then they add in “embellishments” like beads, buttons and lace. A whole industry has grown up around this human tendency that had its logical beginning in saving and re-using salvageable pieces of cloth. Yup, I quilt.
Story telling follows similar patterns and seeks agency, preferably magical and mysterious , behind each tale. It is perhaps an instinct to find novel stimulation for our brains. It is why we tell ghost stories around a campfire at night, why fantasy and science fiction are written and read. It is how humans deal with the balance between the desire to be “certain” about how life is to be lived and explained with the desire to go one step beyond and see what happens if a novel thought or process is introduced. It is how people figure out how to get others to go along with them, to take on power over others. How can I get another to do as I wish them to, by reasoning, or by fear and intimidation? How do I best convince others to see things my way or to do my bidding? It is why humans find ritual comforting but still rebel against it. Such a colorful tapestry we humans weave and then constantly revise.
Log in to Reply
magpie August 14, 2014
On re-reading my comment this morning, I can see that it appears to be a non-sequitur . I do not have the depth of knowledge that most of the other members have about early Christianity as I have just begun to read about the origins of this religion. However, my comment is based on a lifetime of observation. The gist of the above comment was meant to be that in addition to the problems of accurately repeating oral traditions by multiple well-intentioned individuals is the inclination to “fix” the story to make its points “clearer” to its audience. We all do this, mostly without any intent to deceive. There is no better example of this than the current state of US political discourse.
Log in to Reply
Adam0685 August 13, 2014
Fascinating!
With respect to history of oral tradition about Jesus as evidenced in the NT, since Paul wrote before the gospels (it seems a lot of Christians forget this!) a discussion of what Paul knew (and appeared to not know: the many parables in the gospels? the miracle stories? etc.) when he wrote could shed some light on the oral tradition that was circulating in his part of the world. I imagine, given his education and travels, he knew more oral traditions than the average Christian. Yet, what he appears to have known is less than the Gospels and the gospels oral and written sources, which were not written that long after him! Seems like oral tradition was fragmented by time and the space/place they were told. And then there’s the tradition in the apostolic fathers that is not in the NT. Very perplexing stuff!
Log in to Reply
Loring Prest August 13, 2014
Your comments about studying memory issues reminded me (!) of a RadioLab I heard on NPR lately. I know it’s not like a scholarly tome, but for a lightweight listen, go to: http://www.radiolab.org/story/91569-memory-and-forgetting/. I found it very interesting; and it challenged many of my views about memory. I was especially struck by the part where they discuss how the more you recall a memory, the more you change it. In terms of the transmission of oral traditions, this might be worth investigating.
Log in to Reply
fwhiting August 13, 2014
Professor Ehrman: This sounds like a fascinating project. I’ve often wondered where the stories associated with Jesus came from–not just those that made it into the Bible, but the nontraditional legends such as the one describing Jesus as a child fashioning birds out of clay and then turning them loose to fly away. Why did that one not make it into the scriptures while other miraculous events such as turning water into wine, healing the sick and raising the dead *were* included?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
Good question! (My sense is that that story came to be invented later)
Log in to Reply
SJB August 13, 2014
Prof Ehrman
Are you interested in looking at the development of modern messianic movements as part of your research? If so you might find the case of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson interesting. Apparently his followers believed he was the Messiah before he died and since his death in 1994 the messianic fervor has increased and his movement has developed in some interesting ways that even seem to roughly parallel early Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad_messianism
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
Yes I am! And at Pentecostal faith healers and … others!
Log in to Reply
shakespeare66 August 13, 2014
So your argument might take the shape of how it is that Jesus came to be “more” than he was given the fact that his was just a historical “blip” on the world of ancient Judea/Palastinia or whatever it was called at the time ( probably two different names given that the Jews had one name and the Romans another)?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
More, and different.
Log in to Reply
johndash
johndash August 13, 2014
Great. I am so glad you are digging into that. Those sections are the best parts of all three versions of “How Jesus Became God;” and it sent me studying up on Philippi, who the people were who lived there and why and how they would have responded to Paul quoting that “carmen Christi.” And I had to read R.P. Martin’s book, and the appropriate pages of the later edition. You are an expensive scout leader, Dr. Ehrman. But it sure is interesting.
John Dash
Fairport, NY
Log in to Reply
mahass August 13, 2014
Dr. Ehrman,
Will you be engaging with/critiquing Richard Bauckham’s argument/s in “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”? I know his views are not accepted by all scholars, but I have yet to find a sustained engagement with them (thought that may be because I have not looked hard enough).
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
Yes indeed!!
Log in to Reply
RonaldTaska August 14, 2014
It is always good to see your passion about “Christianity in Antiquity” and, as always, I look forward to reading what you learn. Considering 40 years of the telephone game in different places and in different languages, it’s astounding to me that the Gospels resemble each other as much as they do. Why? I guess the use of Mark as a source by the other Gospel authors is one explanation and maybe the lack of very many sources is another explanation. I still would like for you to explain the dating of the Gospels.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
Yes, the issue of sources is the key.
Log in to Reply
ddrtessier August 14, 2014
Will you be referencing or addressing the position that Richard Bauckham has taken on this topic?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
Yes indeed!
Log in to Reply
Steefen August 14, 2014
Dr. Bart Ehrman
But what I’m interested in now is getting deeper (and deeper) into the questions raised by this reality that the Gospel writers inherited their stories from people who inherited them from others who had passed along what had been circulating almost exclusively by word of mouth – for decades!
Steefen:
A non-authentic letter of Paul, Ephesians, states “put on the full armor of God.”
There is a coin, possibly of Julius Caesar’s armor on a cross.
Google: Coin of Julius Caesar’s armor then click Images.
Julius Caesar’s death included betrayal by Brutus. Jesus’ death included betrayal by Judas.
We have a template of Jesus, defied, in Julius Caesar, deified.
Rome incorporated other religions into its culture. Rome also got involved with Judaism. When Josephus declared a Flavian family member, messiah and with the Star Prophecy, such a sign of Jesus–with the Star Prophecy usurped by a Roman historian as well as Josephus; and with Vespasian healing a blind man with saliva similar to the way the New Testament makes an account of Jesus healing a blind man with saliva; Clement an apostolic father(?); and Domitian not waiting to be deified after death, hence, the Living God of Revelation, historically associated with the term “Lord and God”, his priests wearing gold crowns and white robes like the saints in Revelation: Rome also got involved with Christianity.
What writings do we have of the cults of deified emperors? As soon as Rome came at the call of Jerusalem, 1st century BCE, it probably saw, with the Maccabes, Judaism needed to become less militant. How did Rome infiltrate Judaism, the religion? Rome’s Quindecimviri Sacris Faciundis, regulator of foreign cults in Rome, was a think tank for decades on this problem.
If the symbol on the coin of Julius Caesar’s armor was an icon in the Julius Caesar cult’s rituals or if Julius Caesar’s death was re-enacted by his cult, with Mark Anthony (wait)
In Roman Imperial cult, the flamen Divi Iulii was the priest of the divinised Julius Caesar,[1] and the fourth of the so-called flamines maiores (the archpriests of the Roman flaminates) to be created. The new flaminate was established in by the Roman senate in 42 BC, as part of Caesar’s consecration as a divus (divinity of the Roman State) two years after his assassination. Caesar had, in his lifetime, been the recipient of unofficial, divine cult from his supporters, and had designated Mark Antony to serve as his priest.
with Mark Anthony as the precursor to Mark the gospel writer, then, yes, there was a tradition of a deified man with cross icon, betrayed by a friend, pierced in the side.
Julius Caesar’s cross had armor, Jesus only had cloth around his hips. Caesar’s cross was to hold armor, power, strength.
Log in to Reply
Scott F August 14, 2014
Sounds fantastic! I have been waiting for a book such as this for a long time!
Log in to Reply
TrevorN August 14, 2014
I seem to have a comment locked in moderation, although I can’t imagine how it could have been deemed offensive or inappropriate!
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
Really? I’m not sure what the comment was — maybe it disappeared into the electornic stratosphere. Could you try again?
Log in to Reply
gabilaranjeira August 15, 2014
Hi,
In ancient communities, was there a figure specifically in charge of telling stories or was the passing of traditions a more promiscuous process?
Thanks!
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
No, like today, just about anyone who wanted to tell a story was able to do so.
Log in to Reply
z8000783 August 15, 2014
Something Bauckham would disagree with it seems. The disciples and their disciple were the keeps of the tradition it appears.
Is there evidence to confirm this one way or the other?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
Yes, I will be addressing Bauckham’s views head-on!
Log in to Reply
gabilaranjeira August 16, 2014
Ooooops… I don’t know who Bauckham is… I guess I need to find out!
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 17, 2014
Or not. :-)
z8000783 August 15, 2014
Great. It would be good to see some foretasters of that on the blog perhaps.
Log in to Reply
kidron August 21, 2014
It would seem that of particular importance is ‘WHOSE oral tradition’ is acceptable as preserving the teachings of Jesus. As you note the gospel writers did not live in Palestine and wrote in Greek, not Aramaic. In dating the first gospel at the end of the Jewish/Roman war, those who carried the most legitimate oral tradition of Jesus no longer existed in Jerusalem.
The main source of oral tradition available to the gospel writers were therefore among the churches established by Paul. Thus it is inevitable that the stories of Jesus were strongly influencd by the theology preached and accepted by these churches … mostly attributable to Paul who made no secret of his antagonism to James the brother of Jesus who most likely reflected the teachings of his brother.
I have to suspect that many of the stories about Jesus were told to reflect the teachings of Paul. For example the story of Jesus designation the bread and wine as symbolic of his flesh and blood … totally insonsistent with a Jewish Jesus who kept the Mosaic Law. I think that you can add stories of Jesus eating with prostitutes and tax collectors as Pauline influenced. Add to this. the stories of Jesus reaching out to the Gentiles … this is from the oral traditions about Paul whose life work was to reach out to the Gentiles. Jesus was a Jew and I seriously doubt that Paul was. From his own claims he was born a Roman citizen (probably of Herodian lineage) and at best could claim to be a Hebrew or Benjaminite.
If there is any oral tradition that is independent of Paul it probably came from the “Judaizers’ from Jerusalem who visited Paul’s.congregations.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 21, 2014
My view is that there was not one or two streams of oral tradition, but thousands. Everyone who told stories about Jesus — which almost by definition would be everyone who talked about him, i.e., every Christian on the planet — was passing along (or inventing) traditions.
Log in to Reply
Luke9733 August 22, 2014
I’ve often wondered about the two different “Feeding of the Multitudes” stories in Mark (and also Matthew, the feeding of the 5,000 and the lesser known feeding of the 4,000. I know you wouldn’t say the event happened, but do you think those two stories originally started out as just one story and eventually was passed on enough times that there came to be multiple versions of it, and so Mark was recording two different versions of the same story (possibly thinking they were different stories)?
Side note: if that really was what happened with that story, would indicate that Mark probably heard the story from two different people – each one giving him different details?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 23, 2014
Yes, this kind of doubling of a story is known as a “doublet.” It is usually thought that two versions of the same story were in circulation, and Mark heard them both, without realizing they were simply alternative versions of the same thing.
Log in to Reply
Luke9733 August 26, 2014
I can’t remember if you included it or not, but if you didn’t, that might have been an interesting point to make in “Did Jesus Exist”. I don’t know how a Mythicist would explain away both feeding of the multitude stories if they assume that Mark was the originator of these stories (though I have to admit, their imagination never ceases to amaze me). Those two stories alone serve as very strong evidence that Mark must have had sources for what he was writing. Is there a Mythicist explanation for this at all even?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 26, 2014
I don’t think mythicists have a problem with Mark basing his stories on oral traditions, except if they want to argue (I can remember if anyone does) that Mark himself was the one who made everything up.
Log in to Reply
Luke9733 August 27, 2014
I think that Richard Carrier argues that. The way he puts it is that Mark “euhemerized” Jesus the celestial being. His argument is (and I’m not making this up!) that before Mark, Jesus was thought of as a celestial being who was crucified by demons (or the devil) in the lower heavens just below the moon. Mark (he argues) was just writing a historicized version placing this celestial being on Earth and it just so happened to catch on.
I don’t know if anyone else argues that. I also don’t know how in the world he reached that conclusion. If you YouTube “Richard Carrier: The Historicity of Jesus”, you can watch him give a lecture in which he over-simplifies complicated matters, quotes passages out of context (or skips over large, important sections), and (in my own opinion) takes advantage of the fact that most people in the audience probably weren’t familiar with the actual details about he was talking about.
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 27, 2014
Wow. Well, what can I say? Pretty amazing.
discens September 8, 2014
Two comparisons which might be relevant to your project (well, the first based on a counterfactual):
https://twitter.com/nonstampNSC/status/498318951676268545
http://freethoughtkampala.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/jesus-christ-vs-sathya-sai-baba/
Would you be interested in commenting on the first of them at least, and especially on the statement “the gospels… were written exclusively by Jesus’ supporters”?
Thank you for your attention and congratulations on your stimulating blog.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 8, 2014
I’d be happy to address an issue of you want to raise it yourself (I’m afraid I don’t have time to be looking up other blogs/twitters/ and so on . Wish I did!)
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 9, 2014
“And having gone on thence a little, he saw James of Zebedee, and John his brother, and they were in the boat refitting the nets, 20 and immediately he called them, and, having left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, they went away after him.”
“hired servants” maybe they weren’t as low class as we think
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 21, 2014
As a pretty awful, underemployed, mistake prone, christian biased troublemaker/scribe, let me change 2 words from Dr. Bart’s original text: “Those of us who do believe in the Bible can still learn from it. It is a book that deserves to be read and studied, not just as a document of faith but also as a historical record of the thoughts, beliefs, experiences, activities, loves, hates, prejudices and opinions of people who stand at the very foundation of our civilization and culture. It can help us think about the big issues of life—why we are here, what we should be doing, what will become of this world. It can inspire us—and warn us—by its examples. It can urge us to pursue truth, to fight oppression, to work for justice, to insist on peace. It can motivate us to live life more fully while yet we can. It can encourage us to live more for others and not only for ourselves. There will never be a time in the history of the human race when such lessons will have become passe, when the thoughts of important religious thinkers of the past will be irrelevant for those of us living, and thinking in the present.”
Log in to Reply
JRH September 24, 2014
Dear Bart, I think a book about the oral stories regarding Jesus is a great idea. I read your book “How Jesus Became God” but it left me with a lot of questions. For example you speculate that Peter, Paul, and Mary had hallucinations in which they believed they saw the resurrected Jesus. (Really only two people because Paul had his vision later.) And one of the remaining two was a woman (Mary Magdalene.) In a pre Feminist era it would have been easy to dismiss Mary Magdalene as hysterical. That leaves only Peter. And Peter was rather hot headed himself. So how did Peter convince others that he wasn’t crazy in claiming to see the resurrected Jesus? IMO there was a lot of wishful thinking going on. Jesus’ followers wanted to believe Peter so they chose to do so. But how did they convince ordinary Jews and Gentiles? I think a big factor in the growth of Christianity was just how superstitious ancient Palestine was. I believe Josephus implies there were lots of prophets and crackpots wandering around. One of them he mentions was the “Egyptian.” This would be a good topic to write about in your book on oral traditions.
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart September 24, 2014
It’s amazing what people will believe if someone tells them what they saw, with absolute conviction! (Still today)
Log in to Reply
prestonp October 21, 2014
“IMO there was a lot of wishful thinking going on. Jesus’ followers wanted to believe Peter so they chose to do so.” JRH
Perhaps it is wishful thinking to believe as you do; that they sacrificed their lives based on a desire to believe. If Pete hallucinated Christ, he would have had a sick mind. No indications of that historically. About 500 had the same hallucination and many were alive to discuss it when Luke wrote his accounts.
It requires more faith to believe the new testament doesn’t describe Christ than to believe it does. One has to work extremely hard to try to do away with its claims.
Log in to Reply
JRH September 24, 2014
A couple more questions: I have heard that the gospel of Matthew was aimed at the Jews in an attempt to convert some of them. If this is true why was Matthew written in Greek instead of Hebrew?
Also I read a book once called “Dating Acts.” The author argued for a date in the early 2d century for Acts. He basically argued that Christians and Jews are clearly distinguished in Acts and that an earlier date for Acts did not allow enough time for the two religions to separate. What do you think of this idea?
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart September 24, 2014
I don’t think any of the Gospels were written for outsiders. These are “insider” books — written for Christians. They were written in Greek because Hebrew was not an active language at the time, and the authors were not living in Palestine in any event.
I think you’re referring to the book by Richard Pervo. He’s very smart and has read everything on the topic. But I disagree on his dating of Acts. I think it is probably first century.
Log in to Reply
JRH September 24, 2014
Bart, another idea for your oral history book. Apollonius of Tyana. You mention him in “How Jesus Became God” and note the similarities with the story of Jesus. Given that Apollonius seems to have been born only 20 years after Jesus and lived only a few hundred miles away in Turkey, it would be interesting to know who plagiarized whom. Did the followers of Apollonius steal the myths that grew up around Jesus? Or did the followers of Jesus steal from Apollonius? Or is it possible some of these myths predated both these men? Given that Apollonius lived to around 100 AD, he was around and teaching when the gospels and the letters of Paul were written. In fact Paul probably passed through Tyana on occasion. Why is Paul silent regarding Apollonius and his followers when he manages to write letters to all the other religious groups in the Mediterranean?
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart September 24, 2014
My sense is that the followers of both were influenced not one by the other but by the legends and myths in wide circulation in their environment.
Log in to Reply
HistoricalChristianity September 26, 2014
“Hebrew was not an active language at the time.” — 75-80% of the Dead Sea Scrolls were in Hebrew. I can’t test the claims, but I keep seeing more indications that the use of Hebrew (at least for Jewish religious dialog) was being revived earlier than most people thought. Bivin and Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, started me looking down that path. How do you reach your conclusion?
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart September 26, 2014
I rely on experts for this kind of information. There’s a different between having a *written* language (Hebrew) and an active spoken language. The spoken language in Palestine was certainly Aramaic.
Log in to Reply
JRH September 26, 2014
Bart, You mention in “How Jesus Became God” that most scholars view the first 20 years after Jesus’ death as more important to the development of Christianity than the following two centuries. IMO the first 20 days or 20 weeks were even more important. Somehow we go from a crucified body hanging on the cross to Peter’s hallucination of the risen Jesus. Certainly Jesus could not have still been hanging on the cross when Peter had this vision. Even if the Romans left Jesus hanging there as an example to others, (maybe for three days?) at some point some slave would be tasked with disposing of the bodies for reasons of public sanitation. There is also the problem of all the phenomena mentioned in Matthew that accompany the death of Jesus: an earthquake, the sky darkening for three hours, the torn cloth in the temple, etc. And then there are the sightings of Jesus after his resurrection. Especially noteworthy is the crowd of 500 “most of whom are still alive” that Paul claims saw the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15.6.) Obviously none of this really happened. If it did other historians would have recorded such momentous events. And yet in the first few months or so I assume some of these myths originated. Luke has no problem viewing this stuff as legitimate history when he wrote Acts. And yet Luke was an intelligent, highly literate Greek. All of this would be a good topic to discuss in your upcoming book on how oral stories became the gospels.
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart September 28, 2014
Interesting points!
Log in to Reply
JRH October 17, 2014
This is a follow up to my previous post wondering about the first days and weeks after the death of Jesus. As others have noted, the stories that grew up around Jesus could have gotten started like the gossip game “Telephone.” I would like to add that the Eastern Mediterranean in ancient times was fertile ground for mythology. Just a few hundred miles from ancient Israel was Greece. Educated Jews must have been familiar with the Greek myths. In fact one could argue that Greek paganism with their quarreling family of less than omnipotent gods offered a better explanation for the chaos in the world than the omnipotent, benevolent God of the early Christians. The Hebrews had their myths too. The creation story in Genesis is a pretty good guestimate for an ancient people ignorant of cosmology and evolution. And to the east there was Babylon with the Epic of Gilgamesh. So when early Christians starting embellishing (or even inventing) stories about Jesus, they had a rich tradition of mythology to imitate.
Log in to Reply
prestonp October 21, 2014
“Obviously none of this really happened. If it did other historians would have recorded such momentous events.”
That cannot be stated as fact.
Log in to Reply
JRH October 23, 2014
Well how about this one then: “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” Matthew 27:52.
So nobody noticed all these zombies wandering around Jerusalem? Somehow it just didn’t get recorded outside of the Bible? I think it’s safe to say this never really happened and that can be stated as a fact.
Log in to Reply
Tom
Tom October 8, 2014
I sent to you an email this weekend outlining how I’m doing my best to counter the mythicist argument that Jesus never existed. I’m seeing this mindset rapidly spread particularly in my area, but a few are dis-crediting your works and asking for ‘references.’
The email is long-winded and even if you don’t have time to respond, I at least want you to know I’m doing my part to battle the mythicist mindset.
Many thanks for all your work!
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart October 9, 2014
I wish I had the hours in the day to answer all my email! So, sorry if I haven’t replied.
Log in to Reply
Tom
Tom October 15, 2014
I’m sure you receive an enormous influx of emails between fellow scholars, students, and independent researchers (as myself). -Thank you for going back and responding to my needs. Much appreciated!
I see you will be in Roanoke VA November 6th and will do my best to be at this venue (autographs, etc.).
-Tom
Log in to Reply
spiker February 17, 2015
Tom:
I don’t think DJE (or any of the rest of Bart Ehrman’s work) can be discredited. There’s a difference between claims
of discrediting something and actually doing it. Mythicism is catchy because it’s an amateur’s ideology. They seem to use their lack of expertise as a justification for inventting things. IF the question is about a historical Jesus then one needs to apply the standards historians apply (The key for you is to make sure you understand them very well and call mythicists out when they drop them in favor of whatever nonsense they are peddling: The one’s used in DJE. One doesn’t get to introduce opinion polls etc in their place.
If you carefully follow their arguments, you’ll see they lead no where.
I tend to think insinuation is the mythicists tactic of choice
Log in to Reply
spiker February 17, 2015
@ Tom
Your best bet is to ask them to make the case from primary sources. The typical mythicist is not likely to know what a primary source is nor is he willing to actually do any legwork. That’s boring!
This approach has several advantages. First it should be very easy to see why primary sources
are the best sort of evidence. Two it will probably shut the mythicist up for a few minutes
as he tries to think of a way to change the subject ( or waits for someone else to comme along) from primary sources to some variation of the wake up and smell the coffee argument.
Another advantage is this will help you see right away whether your “opponent” is serious or not. Most of them will probably tell you to go look it up. It’s their argument, if they haven’t done the leg work, they don’t know wth they are talking about. How can you not know the evidence for your own argument?
The typical mythicist likes to paddle on about how there were (whatever number they want to toss out) God’s in the Med that were born on Christmas; yet the bible (If it can be considered a primary source) says nothing about Jesus being born on Christmas. So right at the opening Salvo, you sank their battleship!
Its also instructive that Paul has such a hard time convincing people of the very idea of ressurection in an area of the world where ressurection, if you believe mythicists, was
the order of the day because, apparently people once thought vegetaion was a dying and
rising god and thus became carnivores lest the Saviour be made into a salad.
Log in to Reply
ElazarusWills October 16, 2014
The new book idea sounds facinating. My guess would be that while Mark was based mostly on oral storytelling traditions there were probably also written sources being passed around as well at the same time. Possibly mostly sayings. Someone had to be writing something about Jesus and the movement during those 40 years. But how can we even guess about something like that?
Log in to Reply
Jacobus February 11, 2015
Prof. Ehrman, what do you make of the late prof. Maurice Casey’s work? He was non-religious and yet he dated the Gospel of Mark to the Caligula “threat” of erecting a statue of Zeus in the Jerusalem temple. (If I remember correctly about 45 CE). It seems to me, though I didn’t find it clearly stated in the two books I have read, that he used a strong literary paradigm, which is obviously necessary if you want to trace certain gospels back to Aramaic sources. Some of his Aramaic reconstructions are quite convincing, it is at least on par with the reconstructions and reverting of the Gospel of Thomas back to Greek and the International Q-Project. Yet, it seems some of his views did not gain wide acceptance. Do you think that there is any value in the process of conjecturing because it seems to cross a line at some point to become speculation? How is your current research on the oral tradition going? I think it is a fascinating topic, but it seems to me that a hybrid approach to literary and an oral transmission process is just as viable and indeed possible as to just accept that transmission of the gospel tradition was reverted to writing from 70 CE. What do you make of Q for instance in relation to Mark? Is Mark a good oral text but a bad literary text? These are just some of the questions that comes to my mind. The water from 35 (or what ever date Jesus was crucified) to 65/70 CE seems quite murky. It seems for instance Rudolf Bultmann and the Form Critics are out, but what is in? The way we understand the oral/literature tradition of the “lost” years of the church (though we have at least Acts as a seemingly legendary account and Paul’s epistles to Galatians and 1 Corinthians) seems to affect the whole way in which we reconstruct the historical figure of Jesus. It affects some of the tools of the trade, such as the criteria of authenticity we use. Should one become like prof. Luke Timothy Johnson and only through your hands in the air and say that you can’t trace the historical Jesus? How would you respond for instance to Hall Tausig’s book “In the beginning was the Meal” where he argues that at love feasts or at least meals during the symposium early Christians performed the euangellion (good news) or something like it? Surely it is a bold project you are taking on, I wonder how to you conceptualise it. Good luck!
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart February 11, 2015
He was a brilliant if somewhat idiosyncratic scholar.
I’d be happy to deal with your questions, but I can really only handle one at a time. If you want to raise one in particular with me, I’d be happy to address it if I can.
Log in to Reply
Subscribe to Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search by Keyword or User Name
Bart’s Recent Posts
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015
More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015
My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015
BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015
On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015
“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015
Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015
What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015
Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015
Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015
My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015
Archives
Select Month April 2015 (19) March 2015 (27) February 2015 (21) January 2015 (22) December 2014 (26) November 2014 (23) October 2014 (23) September 2014 (26) August 2014 (26) July 2014 (25) June 2014 (25) May 2014 (42) April 2014 (42) March 2014 (39) February 2014 (37) January 2014 (45) December 2013 (45) November 2013 (40) October 2013 (45) September 2013 (42) August 2013 (44) July 2013 (48) June 2013 (45) May 2013 (40) April 2013 (43) March 2013 (44) February 2013 (43) January 2013 (52) December 2012 (46) November 2012 (44) October 2012 (55) September 2012 (51) August 2012 (46) July 2012 (54) June 2012 (51) May 2012 (38) April 2012 (18)
Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
Latest Additions
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...
More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...
One Time Donation to Foundation
Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!
This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.
Monthy Reoccuring Donations
When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112
Enter Your Donation Amount
Login
Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Register | Lost your Password?
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design
Return to Top
http://ehrmanblog.org/my-next-project/
Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users
RSS
YouTube
Google+
Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
Membership
why & how to join
Philanthropy
assist the needy
Latest Posts
member & public
Member Forum
discussions
Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers
Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogWhat Did Paul Know About the Historical Jesus? (For Members)
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...
What Did Paul Know About the Historical Jesus? (For Members)
You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
image_pdfimage_print
in
Share
.
More on Paul’s Knowledge of Jesus’ Life (For Members)«
Jesus and Paul Compared and Contrasted (For Members)»
8
MAY
2014
31
Comments
31 Comments
0 Trackbacks
fwhiting May 8, 2014
Dr. Ehrman: Apparently Paul didn’t believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, because if he did, he surely would have said so. Moreover, since he insisted that Jesus was a descendent of David, he must have believed that Joseph was Jesus’ father. So apparently Paul didn’t think that Jesus’ birth was in any way a miracle. How did the circumstances of his birth become such an important part of his story?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman May 9, 2014
Other Christians thought it really mattered!
Log in to Reply
prairieian May 12, 2014
It seems to me that if Jesus was descended from David, that must be through his father by definition. I don’t believe descending through the mother mattered that much. If he descended through Joseph, then it rather gives rise to the question of his divinity at this stage of the game. If he was not descended through Joseph, that is via the Holy Spirit, then he cannot have been descended through David. Unless, I suppose, he was adopted as a son by Joseph in the Roman fashion – this seems improbable for a Jewish family.
Another small conundrum.
Log in to Reply
RonaldTaska May 8, 2014
How about “Resolved: Paul Knew Significant Historical Information about Jesus ” This gets it in the affirmative.
Log in to Reply
JudithW.Coyle May 9, 2014
That is good!
Log in to Reply
Scott F May 9, 2014
With regards to Judas and The Twelve, I sometimes wonder if the betrayal was attached to Jesus’ inner circle in order to justify the betrayal itself. How could the Son of God possibly be betrayed? It must have been one of his closest associates!
Log in to Reply
willow May 9, 2014
A 3×5 card?!?!?! I couldn’t have imagined that! I’d have thought, had I given it any thought, at least three whole pages (8×11) of single-spaced text! o_O
Log in to Reply
Wilusa May 9, 2014
At what point in all this was Matthias supposedly added to make the number of disciples once again twelve?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman May 9, 2014
In the book of Acts, it was a couple of months after Jesus’ death.
Log in to Reply
EricBrown May 9, 2014
“he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve”
Does this say anything about whether Cephas was part of this body known as “the twelve”?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman May 9, 2014
Not necessarily, although I wrote an article once arguing that Cephas was not one of the 12 because he was a different person from Peter!
Log in to Reply
Rosekeister
Rosekeister May 10, 2014
Did you believe that or were you just trying out the argument? Have you thought about whether the disciples were actually Jesus’ personally chosen 12 or whether they were placed in the narrative gospels because they were the most widely known preachers after Jesus’ death?
Log in to Reply
Rosekeister
Rosekeister May 10, 2014
Can you post the article or maybe a summary of it?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman May 10, 2014
Yup,it’s on my (very long) list!
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman May 10, 2014
I *used* to believe it!
Log in to Reply
Xeronimo74 May 13, 2014
I still think it can’t be totally dismissed though …
yes_hua May 14, 2014
I’ve always wondered that. Do you know where I could find that article?
Log in to Reply
yes_hua May 14, 2014
Oops. Didn’t read to see the reply. I’ll look for it.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman May 14, 2014
Sorry, I don’t know which article you’re referring to.
Log in to Reply
toddfrederick May 9, 2014
Slightly off topic (but not too much off) is when Paul talks of his vision(s) of the Risen Christ he also does so emphatically, that he is not “lying.”
This issue of his visions still disturbs me. Paul obviously believed he had actual historical visions. Whether or not he did have them and if they were authentic, he says he is not lying, and bases “his gospel” on those visions.
None of the scholars (and even non scholars) I have asked will comment much on these vision(s) of Paul. I don’t know why. I guess it is because we can’t prove that a vision actually happened, historically. But Paul says it did happen…either what he said happened or he was psychotic. I don’t know which !! Do you ? :D
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman May 9, 2014
I don’t think people who have hallucinations are psychotic. If they are, then one out of every eight of us is psychotic!!
Log in to Reply
toddfrederick May 10, 2014
Ok…I was thinking of a “vision” that Paul describes, not a hallucination, but they may be the same. Paul indicates he communicated with the Risen Christ…in some way…and was given a “gospel” message apart from Jesus’ earthly followers. Did that happen or did it not happen? If it did that radically changes and expands what Jesus said and did. If the encounter (vision) of the risen Christ did not happen, then what Paul preached was wrong. That is what I am trying to determine if such is even possible to determine.
Ps…I am at the point that I look at a word in the Bible and I realize I don’t have a clue what that word means now or 2000 years ago…example…1John, “Test the spirits that they are from God.” I don’t have a clue what John means by spirits or even the context of that statement.
Paul is emphatic that he somehow spoke with the risen Christ. Either he did or did not…I don’t know.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman May 10, 2014
Yes, believers would say he did. Non-believers would say it was a hallucination. Historians can’t show it one way or the other.
Log in to Reply
toddfrederick May 10, 2014
Yes…I do understand, especially regarding historians … yet I think that question is the key to understanding Paul. Just my opinion.
I don’t have an answer…I don’t think we can ever know.
Thank you for taking time to patiently and sincerely commenting on my question
.
gabilaranjeira May 11, 2014
It also intrigues me the fact that Paul did not write more about Jesus’s life. I wonder what we can infer from that… Does that simply mean that Christianity was not yet a literary religion at that point? Or just the opposite, that there were already some written accounts in circulation and, therefore, he didn’t think it was necessary to write his own account?
Thank you, Bart!
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman May 12, 2014
I don’t think there were any written Gospels that Paul knew of — although there may have been some floating around that he had never seen.
Log in to Reply
adamsmark May 12, 2014
Another consideration would be what Paul knew before he had become a Christian. Not long after Jesus’ crucifixion, Paul opposed Christianity so violently that he tried to destroy it (Gal. 1:14). Evidently he believed the movement threatened Judaism and “the tradition of my fathers,” and that Christianity contained numerous objectionable beliefs, so objectionable as to merit destruction.
Discerning what Paul might have known about Christianity, prior to his conversion, might help us to understand what he believed (or understood) about Jesus subsequently.
Has there been much discussion, in academic circles, regarding what Paul knew about Christianity prior to his conversion? This seems an especially important subject, as it would place Paul’s knowledge closer to the original events.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman May 12, 2014
A lot of people have wondered — but there’s not much evidence to go on. I talk about the issue in several places — including on the blog when I talk about Paul’s understanding of the saying of Torah, “Cursed is he who hangs on a tree.”
Log in to Reply
adamsmark May 13, 2014
It seems reasonable that Paul would have known considerably about the historical Jesus based on his interactions with Christians while he was persecuting the movement, and later from his interactions with James, Peter and John. Not only would he have heard narratives about Jesus, but he would have heard them from the earliest Christians. Granted, Paul says little in his letters, but that he could have significant contact with Christians associated with the faith’s origins and NOT have known about the historical Jesus seems highly improbable.
Why doesn’t he say more? This question would be more relevant if we knew more about the extent of his writings. I can only imagine that we have only the barest sampling of his letters, not enough to make any firm statements about what he knew.
But more to my original point, it seems possible that the pre-Christian Paul objected to more than the crucifixion of the messiah. He expresses in Galatians that he felt Christianity threatened the “traditions of this fathers” — did he see Jesus as one who undermined the law? It also seems possible that he objected to the message of salvation by faith, as Paul impresses to his readers that the very things that repelled him had become the core of his message. Also, his conflict with Peter pertained more to the law (i.e. the observance of the law) than the crucifixion.
Log in to Reply
SBrudney091941 May 23, 2014
In the first few years after Jesus’ death, it is most probable that most Jews who believed in Jesus believed he was the messiah who would restore Israel and usher in the Kingdom of God. The man they thought was the messiah was executed and, apparently, some thought he would return to finish the job. If these are what they believed, then they were still Jews, not Christians. It is very unlikely that they believed the messiah had anything to do with forgiving personal sin. For them, only God, in response to prayers, plus our repentance, could redeem a Jew from sin. So, 1. it is a mystery what it could have been that Paul objected to so strenuously and 2. there might have been believers in Jesus before Paul but they were not Christians. Unless you take the Gospels to be historical and think that Jesus actually taught that belief in him could save one from the wages of sin. It is a mystery how Paul could have made Jesus out to be the messiah he thought he was–that is, how Paul re-defined “messiah” or “christ” into the Christian meaning of Christ. All I can attribute it to would have been that he was so much more Hellenized than other Jews and was familiar with Greek Mystery Cults.
Log in to Reply
Blackie October 31, 2014
For Jesus, thought that matrilineality matters most in determining who is Jewish and Mary’s lineage was Davidic as well as Joseph his adopted “earthly” father. So you can’t negate Mary’s importance in his Jewish lineage. Paul seems to know quite a bit about the family background of Jesus as you clearly point out. Paul is our earliest extant source or what is left of early sources(seeing not much). But we have to start the narrative somewhere and it begins for us with Paul and his writings(and how much was doctored) – although Paul personally didn’t know Jesus except by ” vision”. There is quite a bit unearthed here by your research and analysis. This link between Paul and Jesus are vital for the first steps towards definitive gentile Christianity.
Log in to Reply
Subscribe to Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search by Keyword or User Name
Bart’s Recent Posts
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015
More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015
My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015
BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015
On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015
“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015
Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015
What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015
Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015
Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015
My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015
Archives
Select Month April 2015 (19) March 2015 (27) February 2015 (21) January 2015 (22) December 2014 (26) November 2014 (23) October 2014 (23) September 2014 (26) August 2014 (26) July 2014 (25) June 2014 (25) May 2014 (42) April 2014 (42) March 2014 (39) February 2014 (37) January 2014 (45) December 2013 (45) November 2013 (40) October 2013 (45) September 2013 (42) August 2013 (44) July 2013 (48) June 2013 (45) May 2013 (40) April 2013 (43) March 2013 (44) February 2013 (43) January 2013 (52) December 2012 (46) November 2012 (44) October 2012 (55) September 2012 (51) August 2012 (46) July 2012 (54) June 2012 (51) May 2012 (38) April 2012 (18)
Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
Latest Additions
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...
More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...
One Time Donation to Foundation
Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!
This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.
Monthy Reoccuring Donations
When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112
Enter Your Donation Amount
Login
Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Register | Lost your Password?
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design
Return to Top
http://ehrmanblog.org/what-did-paul-know-about-the-historical-jesus-for-members/
Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users
RSS
YouTube
Google+
Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
Membership
why & how to join
Philanthropy
assist the needy
Latest Posts
member & public
Member Forum
discussions
Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers
Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogWhat Did Paul Know About the Historical Jesus? (For Members)
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...
What Did Paul Know About the Historical Jesus? (For Members)
You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
image_pdfimage_print
in
Share
.
More on Paul’s Knowledge of Jesus’ Life (For Members)«
Jesus and Paul Compared and Contrasted (For Members)»
8
MAY
2014
31
Comments
31 Comments
0 Trackbacks
fwhiting May 8, 2014
Dr. Ehrman: Apparently Paul didn’t believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, because if he did, he surely would have said so. Moreover, since he insisted that Jesus was a descendent of David, he must have believed that Joseph was Jesus’ father. So apparently Paul didn’t think that Jesus’ birth was in any way a miracle. How did the circumstances of his birth become such an important part of his story?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman May 9, 2014
Other Christians thought it really mattered!
Log in to Reply
prairieian May 12, 2014
It seems to me that if Jesus was descended from David, that must be through his father by definition. I don’t believe descending through the mother mattered that much. If he descended through Joseph, then it rather gives rise to the question of his divinity at this stage of the game. If he was not descended through Joseph, that is via the Holy Spirit, then he cannot have been descended through David. Unless, I suppose, he was adopted as a son by Joseph in the Roman fashion – this seems improbable for a Jewish family.
Another small conundrum.
Log in to Reply
RonaldTaska May 8, 2014
How about “Resolved: Paul Knew Significant Historical Information about Jesus ” This gets it in the affirmative.
Log in to Reply
JudithW.Coyle May 9, 2014
That is good!
Log in to Reply
Scott F May 9, 2014
With regards to Judas and The Twelve, I sometimes wonder if the betrayal was attached to Jesus’ inner circle in order to justify the betrayal itself. How could the Son of God possibly be betrayed? It must have been one of his closest associates!
Log in to Reply
willow May 9, 2014
A 3×5 card?!?!?! I couldn’t have imagined that! I’d have thought, had I given it any thought, at least three whole pages (8×11) of single-spaced text! o_O
Log in to Reply
Wilusa May 9, 2014
At what point in all this was Matthias supposedly added to make the number of disciples once again twelve?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman May 9, 2014
In the book of Acts, it was a couple of months after Jesus’ death.
Log in to Reply
EricBrown May 9, 2014
“he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve”
Does this say anything about whether Cephas was part of this body known as “the twelve”?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman May 9, 2014
Not necessarily, although I wrote an article once arguing that Cephas was not one of the 12 because he was a different person from Peter!
Log in to Reply
Rosekeister
Rosekeister May 10, 2014
Did you believe that or were you just trying out the argument? Have you thought about whether the disciples were actually Jesus’ personally chosen 12 or whether they were placed in the narrative gospels because they were the most widely known preachers after Jesus’ death?
Log in to Reply
Rosekeister
Rosekeister May 10, 2014
Can you post the article or maybe a summary of it?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman May 10, 2014
Yup,it’s on my (very long) list!
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman May 10, 2014
I *used* to believe it!
Log in to Reply
Xeronimo74 May 13, 2014
I still think it can’t be totally dismissed though …
yes_hua May 14, 2014
I’ve always wondered that. Do you know where I could find that article?
Log in to Reply
yes_hua May 14, 2014
Oops. Didn’t read to see the reply. I’ll look for it.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman May 14, 2014
Sorry, I don’t know which article you’re referring to.
Log in to Reply
toddfrederick May 9, 2014
Slightly off topic (but not too much off) is when Paul talks of his vision(s) of the Risen Christ he also does so emphatically, that he is not “lying.”
This issue of his visions still disturbs me. Paul obviously believed he had actual historical visions. Whether or not he did have them and if they were authentic, he says he is not lying, and bases “his gospel” on those visions.
None of the scholars (and even non scholars) I have asked will comment much on these vision(s) of Paul. I don’t know why. I guess it is because we can’t prove that a vision actually happened, historically. But Paul says it did happen…either what he said happened or he was psychotic. I don’t know which !! Do you ? :D
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman May 9, 2014
I don’t think people who have hallucinations are psychotic. If they are, then one out of every eight of us is psychotic!!
Log in to Reply
toddfrederick May 10, 2014
Ok…I was thinking of a “vision” that Paul describes, not a hallucination, but they may be the same. Paul indicates he communicated with the Risen Christ…in some way…and was given a “gospel” message apart from Jesus’ earthly followers. Did that happen or did it not happen? If it did that radically changes and expands what Jesus said and did. If the encounter (vision) of the risen Christ did not happen, then what Paul preached was wrong. That is what I am trying to determine if such is even possible to determine.
Ps…I am at the point that I look at a word in the Bible and I realize I don’t have a clue what that word means now or 2000 years ago…example…1John, “Test the spirits that they are from God.” I don’t have a clue what John means by spirits or even the context of that statement.
Paul is emphatic that he somehow spoke with the risen Christ. Either he did or did not…I don’t know.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman May 10, 2014
Yes, believers would say he did. Non-believers would say it was a hallucination. Historians can’t show it one way or the other.
Log in to Reply
toddfrederick May 10, 2014
Yes…I do understand, especially regarding historians … yet I think that question is the key to understanding Paul. Just my opinion.
I don’t have an answer…I don’t think we can ever know.
Thank you for taking time to patiently and sincerely commenting on my question
.
gabilaranjeira May 11, 2014
It also intrigues me the fact that Paul did not write more about Jesus’s life. I wonder what we can infer from that… Does that simply mean that Christianity was not yet a literary religion at that point? Or just the opposite, that there were already some written accounts in circulation and, therefore, he didn’t think it was necessary to write his own account?
Thank you, Bart!
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman May 12, 2014
I don’t think there were any written Gospels that Paul knew of — although there may have been some floating around that he had never seen.
Log in to Reply
adamsmark May 12, 2014
Another consideration would be what Paul knew before he had become a Christian. Not long after Jesus’ crucifixion, Paul opposed Christianity so violently that he tried to destroy it (Gal. 1:14). Evidently he believed the movement threatened Judaism and “the tradition of my fathers,” and that Christianity contained numerous objectionable beliefs, so objectionable as to merit destruction.
Discerning what Paul might have known about Christianity, prior to his conversion, might help us to understand what he believed (or understood) about Jesus subsequently.
Has there been much discussion, in academic circles, regarding what Paul knew about Christianity prior to his conversion? This seems an especially important subject, as it would place Paul’s knowledge closer to the original events.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman May 12, 2014
A lot of people have wondered — but there’s not much evidence to go on. I talk about the issue in several places — including on the blog when I talk about Paul’s understanding of the saying of Torah, “Cursed is he who hangs on a tree.”
Log in to Reply
adamsmark May 13, 2014
It seems reasonable that Paul would have known considerably about the historical Jesus based on his interactions with Christians while he was persecuting the movement, and later from his interactions with James, Peter and John. Not only would he have heard narratives about Jesus, but he would have heard them from the earliest Christians. Granted, Paul says little in his letters, but that he could have significant contact with Christians associated with the faith’s origins and NOT have known about the historical Jesus seems highly improbable.
Why doesn’t he say more? This question would be more relevant if we knew more about the extent of his writings. I can only imagine that we have only the barest sampling of his letters, not enough to make any firm statements about what he knew.
But more to my original point, it seems possible that the pre-Christian Paul objected to more than the crucifixion of the messiah. He expresses in Galatians that he felt Christianity threatened the “traditions of this fathers” — did he see Jesus as one who undermined the law? It also seems possible that he objected to the message of salvation by faith, as Paul impresses to his readers that the very things that repelled him had become the core of his message. Also, his conflict with Peter pertained more to the law (i.e. the observance of the law) than the crucifixion.
Log in to Reply
SBrudney091941 May 23, 2014
In the first few years after Jesus’ death, it is most probable that most Jews who believed in Jesus believed he was the messiah who would restore Israel and usher in the Kingdom of God. The man they thought was the messiah was executed and, apparently, some thought he would return to finish the job. If these are what they believed, then they were still Jews, not Christians. It is very unlikely that they believed the messiah had anything to do with forgiving personal sin. For them, only God, in response to prayers, plus our repentance, could redeem a Jew from sin. So, 1. it is a mystery what it could have been that Paul objected to so strenuously and 2. there might have been believers in Jesus before Paul but they were not Christians. Unless you take the Gospels to be historical and think that Jesus actually taught that belief in him could save one from the wages of sin. It is a mystery how Paul could have made Jesus out to be the messiah he thought he was–that is, how Paul re-defined “messiah” or “christ” into the Christian meaning of Christ. All I can attribute it to would have been that he was so much more Hellenized than other Jews and was familiar with Greek Mystery Cults.
Log in to Reply
Blackie October 31, 2014
For Jesus, thought that matrilineality matters most in determining who is Jewish and Mary’s lineage was Davidic as well as Joseph his adopted “earthly” father. So you can’t negate Mary’s importance in his Jewish lineage. Paul seems to know quite a bit about the family background of Jesus as you clearly point out. Paul is our earliest extant source or what is left of early sources(seeing not much). But we have to start the narrative somewhere and it begins for us with Paul and his writings(and how much was doctored) – although Paul personally didn’t know Jesus except by ” vision”. There is quite a bit unearthed here by your research and analysis. This link between Paul and Jesus are vital for the first steps towards definitive gentile Christianity.
Log in to Reply
Subscribe to Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search by Keyword or User Name
Bart’s Recent Posts
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015
More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015
My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015
BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015
On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015
“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015
Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015
What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015
Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015
Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015
My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015
Archives
Select Month April 2015 (19) March 2015 (27) February 2015 (21) January 2015 (22) December 2014 (26) November 2014 (23) October 2014 (23) September 2014 (26) August 2014 (26) July 2014 (25) June 2014 (25) May 2014 (42) April 2014 (42) March 2014 (39) February 2014 (37) January 2014 (45) December 2013 (45) November 2013 (40) October 2013 (45) September 2013 (42) August 2013 (44) July 2013 (48) June 2013 (45) May 2013 (40) April 2013 (43) March 2013 (44) February 2013 (43) January 2013 (52) December 2012 (46) November 2012 (44) October 2012 (55) September 2012 (51) August 2012 (46) July 2012 (54) June 2012 (51) May 2012 (38) April 2012 (18)
Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
Latest Additions
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...
More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...
One Time Donation to Foundation
Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!
This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.
Monthy Reoccuring Donations
When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112
Enter Your Donation Amount
Login
Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Register | Lost your Password?
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design
Return to Top
http://ehrmanblog.org/what-did-paul-know-about-the-historical-jesus-for-members/
Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users
RSS
YouTube
Google+
Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
Membership
why & how to join
Philanthropy
assist the needy
Latest Posts
member & public
Member Forum
discussions
Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers
Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogThe Book of Revelation in Historical Context
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...
The Book of Revelation in Historical Context
I resume here my thread on the book of Revelation, trying to situate it in its historical context. This will not be a long thread, in no small measure because I am not an expert on this very complicated book and have not written extensively about it. I’ve thought that maybe it would be a good trade book at some point, in which case I would spend a year or so reading everything. And then I would have lots of other posts! But if that happens, it will be some years down the line. Assuming the world hasn’t been destroyed by that time.
Here I talk about putting Revelation into its historical context. Again, this is taken from my textbook on the New Testament.
**********************************************
The Revelation of John in Historical Context
I have already pointed out that the book of Revelation is virtually unique among apocalypses in that it does not appear to be pseudonymous. I say that it does not “appear” to be pseudonymous because the author simply calls himself John without claiming to be a famous person from the past.
Some Christians of the second and third centuries claimed that this John was none other than the son of Zebedee, Jesus’ own disciple. Others rejected this notion and as a result refused to admit the book into the Christian canon of Scripture. I should point out that….
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN UP! It’s not much money and every dime goes to charity!
You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
image_pdfimage_print
in
Share
.
The Book of Revelation as an Apocalypse«
The Book of Revelation and the Apocalypse Genre»
23
FEB
2015
19
Comments
19 Comments
0 Trackbacks
Stephen February 24, 2015
Given the complicated provenance of the work what would you regard as the earliest part of Revelation and the latest? Care to speculate?
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart February 25, 2015
No idea!
Log in to Reply
toejam February 24, 2015
Elaine Pagels’ tradebook “Revelations” is great (and yes, the plural was deliberate… or show she says haha). Craig Koester’s “Revelation and the End of All Things” (including the accompanying Great Courses lecture series) is also great. You’d be hard pressed to outdo them on a trade book IMO.
I’ve got into a few debates with “King James Only” fundamentalists who insist that Revelation 13:16 is a prophecy about a micro-chip “in” the hand. I’ve tried to point out to them that the greek word used, ἐπὶ, means “on” and is probably implying some sort of branding or tattoo. Am I being grammatically correct? Could ἐπὶ mean “in”? Clearly the authors feared some sort of physical branding by the Romans. Was their anything more to their fear? Anything tangible about it? Was there actually any talk about potentially branding non-Roman citizens?
Log in to Reply
toejam February 24, 2015
i.e. in the King James version, ἐπὶ is translated as “in”… (also, it should read “so she says”)
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart February 25, 2015
You’re right, the word almost always means “upon.” If the author wanted to say “in” he would have used εν or εις.
Log in to Reply
RonaldTaska February 24, 2015
I found your discussion of the different literary styles of Revelation and the Gospel of John to be quite helpful meaning that the books had different authors. Thanks.
Although I advised you (who am I to advise anyone?) to let go of the Kyle Butt debate, I find that I remain annoyed by it. The principles outlined on Butt’s “Apologetics Press” website also include the ideas that the earth is only several thousand (maybe about ten thousand) years old (apparently all carbon-14 dating of fossil material is flawed and humans coexisted with giant dinosaurs) and that Noah’s flood shaped most of our current geological findings. How can anyone take anything else these people say about anything seriously? Moreover, I don’t know how you had the stamina for 3 hours of this Kyle Butt debate. I will now try to let it go….
Log in to Reply
qaelith2112 February 24, 2015
I would certainly love to see a full-length book on Revelation written by you, but absent some unforeseen new instantaneous cloning technology, I realize your backlog of other equally interesting projects would place this some years away, as you’ve said. In the meantime, do any particular books by other esteemed critical scholars stand out as being worth reading? I’ve read lots of limited scope commentary on this or that aspect of the book but never a full treatment which I have found satisfactory.
Log in to Reply
stokerslodge February 24, 2015
I’m wondering what the writer of The Book of Revelation was intending to convey when he wrote of writing to the Angels of the seven churches in Asia Minor. Do we know in what sense those early Christians would have understood those words? Would they have interpreted the word Angels in a literal or figurative sense?
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart February 25, 2015
I think they are understood normally to be the guardian spirits over the church, and therefore are representative of teh congregations within the churches.
Log in to Reply
Jrgebert February 24, 2015
You said the number 666 was using Hebrew counting. Since the Revelation of John was written in Greek how would early readers know it referred to Nero? Did Aramaic have a counting scheme?
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart February 25, 2015
They did. But the point is that it is to be highly mysterious. And 666 is perfect for that, since 6 is one less than 7.
Log in to Reply
nichael February 26, 2015
Let me ask a question here about something I’ve been wondering about recently.
I’m certainly familiar with this point (i.e. “666” is used as the number of the beast in part because “6 is one less than 7″, tripled).
This certainly makes sense if one represents the number “666” as we do, that is as “three sixes” (i.e. [six][six][six]).
But, as we’ve noted many times recently this is *not* how the number was represent in Greek. Rather it was represented as [six-hundred][sixty][six] –or even written out in full.
Specifically “one more” than each of the digits would not be “[seven][seven][seven]”, rather it would be something like “[seven-hundred][seventy][seven]” (or even [six-hundred-one][sixty-one][seven]”).
One might argue that “after all [70] is ten-fold-seven (or [700] is a hundred-fold-seven)”. But while we know that “7 is the number of fulfillment”, do we have any notion of the symbolic/gematric meaning of “70” or of “700”
For that matter, to represent “higher powers of fulfillment” wouldn’t they have likely used, say, 49 (= 7*7) or 343 (= 7*7*7).
[Sorry, but sometimes the geek in me leaks out ;-.) ]
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart February 28, 2015
Good questions! I don’t know!!
Log in to Reply
alienvoodoo February 25, 2015
Dr, Bart,
considering how many “christians” today take the book of Revelation literally to be predicting our “soon to be fulfilled” future, without understanding the genre, I’m wondering/asking if you would at some point talk about how the early christians who were mostly illiterate used OT writings to validate/prove who they believed Jesus to be. I find it amazing that so many in our supposedly literate society accept what they have been taught without reading for themselves the texts in question. To my way of thinking, basing a belief on something by taking a text out of context or simply making it up is a pretty shaky foundation for faith. Anyway, if you have time and care to comment it would be extremely helpful.
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart February 28, 2015
AOK, I’ll add it to my long list of things to talk about!
Log in to Reply
Lasha Bezhanishvili February 25, 2015
There is one episode in Revelation which can easily prove the author could not be John.
In Revelation 3:14, the writes uses word ἀρχὴ(beginning) when talking about Christ as being the beginning of God’s creation. This is an Arian concept which is completely alien to the writer of Gospel of John.
There are fundamentalists who translate it as “ruler of God’s creation” which can’t stand a criticism. Writer of Gospel of John uses the word ἀρχὴ in Gospel only in sense of “beginning”. Whenever he wants to mean a “ruler” with the same word, he always uses the word ἄρχων like in John 12:31.
Thus even this episode alone proves the writer could not have been John.
What is your attitude towards this argument? Is it possible that Rev 3:14 is not an Arian concept at all?
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart February 28, 2015
Interesting!
I don’t think that this can be an “Arian” idea, though, since Arius was born about 150 years later!
Log in to Reply
walid February 26, 2015
Professir Ehrman: you make such a hard task look so easy.
I never imagined what you write to be written in such a way.
I normally have no critical eye when an article has your name on it, better be blind than embarrased really, because you will prove me wrong somehow, but here’s one which is nagging me.
In Rev. 11, the author is talking about the measurement of the temple, as if it’s still in existence, I guess that answers our honourable friend ‘Stephen’, I am also quite sure your denial of knowledge is more based on your scholarly opinion rather than you just ‘don’t know’ …
The point that keeps breating down my neck is that this author, whoever he is, is extremely Jewish, 12x12k = 144000 are all that will go to heaven, (or Wembley in our English tradition) and talking of the temple as if it’s the centre of the universe, I believe this could be another reason why this person can’t be the author of the fourth gospel, because the other one talks of the Jews as if they’re aliens, the Jews did so, the Jews did that, as if Jesus himself wasn’t one of them.
I know he is prolly a Helenistic brand, perhaps a diaspora Jew, and hence the Greek language but as you enlightened us, the man’s literally style tells of an Aramaic background which supports my theory that he was a Jew.
The question becomes then: can this book be a skeleton taken from a book a la Daniel and then modified to suit the purpose by the later church?
apologies for the long comment, and thanks in advance, much appreciate it.
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart February 28, 2015
Yes, it is often thought that Daniel served as a model for the author.
Log in to Reply
Subscribe to Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search by Keyword or User Name
Bart’s Recent Posts
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015
More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015
My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015
BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015
On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015
“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015
Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015
What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015
Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015
Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015
My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015
Archives
Select Month April 2015 (19) March 2015 (27) February 2015 (21) January 2015 (22) December 2014 (26) November 2014 (23) October 2014 (23) September 2014 (26) August 2014 (26) July 2014 (25) June 2014 (25) May 2014 (42) April 2014 (42) March 2014 (39) February 2014 (37) January 2014 (45) December 2013 (45) November 2013 (40) October 2013 (45) September 2013 (42) August 2013 (44) July 2013 (48) June 2013 (45) May 2013 (40) April 2013 (43) March 2013 (44) February 2013 (43) January 2013 (52) December 2012 (46) November 2012 (44) October 2012 (55) September 2012 (51) August 2012 (46) July 2012 (54) June 2012 (51) May 2012 (38) April 2012 (18)
Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
Latest Additions
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...
More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...
One Time Donation to Foundation
Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!
This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.
Monthy Reoccuring Donations
When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112
Enter Your Donation Amount
Login
Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Register | Lost your Password?
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design
Return to Top
http://ehrmanblog.org/the-book-of-revelation-in-historical-context/
Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users
RSS
YouTube
Google+
Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
Membership
why & how to join
Philanthropy
assist the needy
Latest Posts
member & public
Member Forum
discussions
Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers
Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogThe Book of Revelation in Historical Context
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...
The Book of Revelation in Historical Context
I resume here my thread on the book of Revelation, trying to situate it in its historical context. This will not be a long thread, in no small measure because I am not an expert on this very complicated book and have not written extensively about it. I’ve thought that maybe it would be a good trade book at some point, in which case I would spend a year or so reading everything. And then I would have lots of other posts! But if that happens, it will be some years down the line. Assuming the world hasn’t been destroyed by that time.
Here I talk about putting Revelation into its historical context. Again, this is taken from my textbook on the New Testament.
**********************************************
The Revelation of John in Historical Context
I have already pointed out that the book of Revelation is virtually unique among apocalypses in that it does not appear to be pseudonymous. I say that it does not “appear” to be pseudonymous because the author simply calls himself John without claiming to be a famous person from the past.
Some Christians of the second and third centuries claimed that this John was none other than the son of Zebedee, Jesus’ own disciple. Others rejected this notion and as a result refused to admit the book into the Christian canon of Scripture. I should point out that….
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN UP! It’s not much money and every dime goes to charity!
You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
image_pdfimage_print
in
Share
.
The Book of Revelation as an Apocalypse«
The Book of Revelation and the Apocalypse Genre»
23
FEB
2015
19
Comments
19 Comments
0 Trackbacks
Stephen February 24, 2015
Given the complicated provenance of the work what would you regard as the earliest part of Revelation and the latest? Care to speculate?
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart February 25, 2015
No idea!
Log in to Reply
toejam February 24, 2015
Elaine Pagels’ tradebook “Revelations” is great (and yes, the plural was deliberate… or show she says haha). Craig Koester’s “Revelation and the End of All Things” (including the accompanying Great Courses lecture series) is also great. You’d be hard pressed to outdo them on a trade book IMO.
I’ve got into a few debates with “King James Only” fundamentalists who insist that Revelation 13:16 is a prophecy about a micro-chip “in” the hand. I’ve tried to point out to them that the greek word used, ἐπὶ, means “on” and is probably implying some sort of branding or tattoo. Am I being grammatically correct? Could ἐπὶ mean “in”? Clearly the authors feared some sort of physical branding by the Romans. Was their anything more to their fear? Anything tangible about it? Was there actually any talk about potentially branding non-Roman citizens?
Log in to Reply
toejam February 24, 2015
i.e. in the King James version, ἐπὶ is translated as “in”… (also, it should read “so she says”)
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart February 25, 2015
You’re right, the word almost always means “upon.” If the author wanted to say “in” he would have used εν or εις.
Log in to Reply
RonaldTaska February 24, 2015
I found your discussion of the different literary styles of Revelation and the Gospel of John to be quite helpful meaning that the books had different authors. Thanks.
Although I advised you (who am I to advise anyone?) to let go of the Kyle Butt debate, I find that I remain annoyed by it. The principles outlined on Butt’s “Apologetics Press” website also include the ideas that the earth is only several thousand (maybe about ten thousand) years old (apparently all carbon-14 dating of fossil material is flawed and humans coexisted with giant dinosaurs) and that Noah’s flood shaped most of our current geological findings. How can anyone take anything else these people say about anything seriously? Moreover, I don’t know how you had the stamina for 3 hours of this Kyle Butt debate. I will now try to let it go….
Log in to Reply
qaelith2112 February 24, 2015
I would certainly love to see a full-length book on Revelation written by you, but absent some unforeseen new instantaneous cloning technology, I realize your backlog of other equally interesting projects would place this some years away, as you’ve said. In the meantime, do any particular books by other esteemed critical scholars stand out as being worth reading? I’ve read lots of limited scope commentary on this or that aspect of the book but never a full treatment which I have found satisfactory.
Log in to Reply
stokerslodge February 24, 2015
I’m wondering what the writer of The Book of Revelation was intending to convey when he wrote of writing to the Angels of the seven churches in Asia Minor. Do we know in what sense those early Christians would have understood those words? Would they have interpreted the word Angels in a literal or figurative sense?
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart February 25, 2015
I think they are understood normally to be the guardian spirits over the church, and therefore are representative of teh congregations within the churches.
Log in to Reply
Jrgebert February 24, 2015
You said the number 666 was using Hebrew counting. Since the Revelation of John was written in Greek how would early readers know it referred to Nero? Did Aramaic have a counting scheme?
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart February 25, 2015
They did. But the point is that it is to be highly mysterious. And 666 is perfect for that, since 6 is one less than 7.
Log in to Reply
nichael February 26, 2015
Let me ask a question here about something I’ve been wondering about recently.
I’m certainly familiar with this point (i.e. “666” is used as the number of the beast in part because “6 is one less than 7″, tripled).
This certainly makes sense if one represents the number “666” as we do, that is as “three sixes” (i.e. [six][six][six]).
But, as we’ve noted many times recently this is *not* how the number was represent in Greek. Rather it was represented as [six-hundred][sixty][six] –or even written out in full.
Specifically “one more” than each of the digits would not be “[seven][seven][seven]”, rather it would be something like “[seven-hundred][seventy][seven]” (or even [six-hundred-one][sixty-one][seven]”).
One might argue that “after all [70] is ten-fold-seven (or [700] is a hundred-fold-seven)”. But while we know that “7 is the number of fulfillment”, do we have any notion of the symbolic/gematric meaning of “70” or of “700”
For that matter, to represent “higher powers of fulfillment” wouldn’t they have likely used, say, 49 (= 7*7) or 343 (= 7*7*7).
[Sorry, but sometimes the geek in me leaks out ;-.) ]
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart February 28, 2015
Good questions! I don’t know!!
Log in to Reply
alienvoodoo February 25, 2015
Dr, Bart,
considering how many “christians” today take the book of Revelation literally to be predicting our “soon to be fulfilled” future, without understanding the genre, I’m wondering/asking if you would at some point talk about how the early christians who were mostly illiterate used OT writings to validate/prove who they believed Jesus to be. I find it amazing that so many in our supposedly literate society accept what they have been taught without reading for themselves the texts in question. To my way of thinking, basing a belief on something by taking a text out of context or simply making it up is a pretty shaky foundation for faith. Anyway, if you have time and care to comment it would be extremely helpful.
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart February 28, 2015
AOK, I’ll add it to my long list of things to talk about!
Log in to Reply
Lasha Bezhanishvili February 25, 2015
There is one episode in Revelation which can easily prove the author could not be John.
In Revelation 3:14, the writes uses word ἀρχὴ(beginning) when talking about Christ as being the beginning of God’s creation. This is an Arian concept which is completely alien to the writer of Gospel of John.
There are fundamentalists who translate it as “ruler of God’s creation” which can’t stand a criticism. Writer of Gospel of John uses the word ἀρχὴ in Gospel only in sense of “beginning”. Whenever he wants to mean a “ruler” with the same word, he always uses the word ἄρχων like in John 12:31.
Thus even this episode alone proves the writer could not have been John.
What is your attitude towards this argument? Is it possible that Rev 3:14 is not an Arian concept at all?
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart February 28, 2015
Interesting!
I don’t think that this can be an “Arian” idea, though, since Arius was born about 150 years later!
Log in to Reply
walid February 26, 2015
Professir Ehrman: you make such a hard task look so easy.
I never imagined what you write to be written in such a way.
I normally have no critical eye when an article has your name on it, better be blind than embarrased really, because you will prove me wrong somehow, but here’s one which is nagging me.
In Rev. 11, the author is talking about the measurement of the temple, as if it’s still in existence, I guess that answers our honourable friend ‘Stephen’, I am also quite sure your denial of knowledge is more based on your scholarly opinion rather than you just ‘don’t know’ …
The point that keeps breating down my neck is that this author, whoever he is, is extremely Jewish, 12x12k = 144000 are all that will go to heaven, (or Wembley in our English tradition) and talking of the temple as if it’s the centre of the universe, I believe this could be another reason why this person can’t be the author of the fourth gospel, because the other one talks of the Jews as if they’re aliens, the Jews did so, the Jews did that, as if Jesus himself wasn’t one of them.
I know he is prolly a Helenistic brand, perhaps a diaspora Jew, and hence the Greek language but as you enlightened us, the man’s literally style tells of an Aramaic background which supports my theory that he was a Jew.
The question becomes then: can this book be a skeleton taken from a book a la Daniel and then modified to suit the purpose by the later church?
apologies for the long comment, and thanks in advance, much appreciate it.
Log in to Reply
Bart
Bart February 28, 2015
Yes, it is often thought that Daniel served as a model for the author.
Log in to Reply
Subscribe to Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search by Keyword or User Name
Bart’s Recent Posts
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015
More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015
My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015
BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015
On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015
“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015
Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015
What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015
Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015
Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015
My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015
Archives
Select Month April 2015 (19) March 2015 (27) February 2015 (21) January 2015 (22) December 2014 (26) November 2014 (23) October 2014 (23) September 2014 (26) August 2014 (26) July 2014 (25) June 2014 (25) May 2014 (42) April 2014 (42) March 2014 (39) February 2014 (37) January 2014 (45) December 2013 (45) November 2013 (40) October 2013 (45) September 2013 (42) August 2013 (44) July 2013 (48) June 2013 (45) May 2013 (40) April 2013 (43) March 2013 (44) February 2013 (43) January 2013 (52) December 2012 (46) November 2012 (44) October 2012 (55) September 2012 (51) August 2012 (46) July 2012 (54) June 2012 (51) May 2012 (38) April 2012 (18)
Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
Latest Additions
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...
More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...
One Time Donation to Foundation
Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!
This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.
Monthy Reoccuring Donations
When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112
Enter Your Donation Amount
Login
Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Register | Lost your Password?
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design
Return to Top
http://ehrmanblog.org/the-book-of-revelation-in-historical-context/
Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users
RSS
YouTube
Google+
Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
Membership
why & how to join
Philanthropy
assist the needy
Latest Posts
member & public
Member Forum
discussions
Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers
Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogThe Accuracy of Acts
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...
The Accuracy of Acts
We could deal forever with the question of the historical accuracy of Acts. There are entire books devoted to the problem and even to *aspects* of the problem, and different scholars come to different conclusions. My own view is that since Acts is at odds with Paul just about every time they talk about the same thing, that it is probably not to be taken as very accurate, especially in its detail. In yesterday’s post I dealt with a couple of places where it’s portrayal of Paul’s *actions* seem to be at odds with what Paul himself says; in today’s, my last post on the topic, I speak about Paul’s *teachings/views* and come to the same conclusion. I’ll pick just one example, and again, draw my remarks from comments I’ve made elsewhere in print.
***************************************************************
Almost all of Paul’s evangelistic sermons mentioned in Acts are addressed to Jewish audiences. This itself should strike us as odd, given Paul’s own repeated claim that his mission was to the Gentiles. In any event, the most famous exception is his speech to a group of philosophers on the Areopagus in Athens (chapter 17). Here Paul explains that the Jewish God is in fact the God of all, pagan and Jew alike, even though the pagans have been ignorant of him. Paul’s understanding of pagan polytheism is reasonably clear here: pagans have simply not known that there is only One God, the creator of all, and can thus not be held accountable for failing to worship the one whom they have not known. That is to say, since they have been ignorant of the true God, rather than willfully disobedient to him, he has overlooked their false religions until now. With the coming of Jesus, though, he is calling all people to repent in preparation for the coming judgment (Acts 17:23-31).
This perspective contrasts sharply with the views about pagan idolatry that Paul sets forth in his own letters. In the letter to the Romans, for example, Paul claims that pagan idolaters are *not*….
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, go to the Members’ Site. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN ALREADY!!!
image_pdfimage_print
in
Share
.
Summing Up: Was Luke Luke? (For members)«
The Accuracy of Acts: Part 2 (For members)»
5
SEP
2013
0
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search by Keyword or User Name
Bart’s Recent Posts
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015
More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015
My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015
BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015
On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015
“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015
Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015
What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015
Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015
Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015
My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015
Archives
Select Month April 2015 (19) March 2015 (27) February 2015 (21) January 2015 (22) December 2014 (26) November 2014 (23) October 2014 (23) September 2014 (26) August 2014 (26) July 2014 (25) June 2014 (25) May 2014 (42) April 2014 (42) March 2014 (39) February 2014 (37) January 2014 (45) December 2013 (45) November 2013 (40) October 2013 (45) September 2013 (42) August 2013 (44) July 2013 (48) June 2013 (45) May 2013 (40) April 2013 (43) March 2013 (44) February 2013 (43) January 2013 (52) December 2012 (46) November 2012 (44) October 2012 (55) September 2012 (51) August 2012 (46) July 2012 (54) June 2012 (51) May 2012 (38) April 2012 (18)
Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
Latest Additions
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...
More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...
One Time Donation to Foundation
Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!
This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.
Monthy Reoccuring Donations
When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112
Enter Your Donation Amount
Login
Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Register | Lost your Password?
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design
Return to Top
http://ehrmanblog.org/accuracy-acts/
Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users
RSS
YouTube
Google+
Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
Membership
why & how to join
Philanthropy
assist the needy
Latest Posts
member & public
Member Forum
discussions
Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers
Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogThe Accuracy of Acts
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...
The Accuracy of Acts
We could deal forever with the question of the historical accuracy of Acts. There are entire books devoted to the problem and even to *aspects* of the problem, and different scholars come to different conclusions. My own view is that since Acts is at odds with Paul just about every time they talk about the same thing, that it is probably not to be taken as very accurate, especially in its detail. In yesterday’s post I dealt with a couple of places where it’s portrayal of Paul’s *actions* seem to be at odds with what Paul himself says; in today’s, my last post on the topic, I speak about Paul’s *teachings/views* and come to the same conclusion. I’ll pick just one example, and again, draw my remarks from comments I’ve made elsewhere in print.
***************************************************************
Almost all of Paul’s evangelistic sermons mentioned in Acts are addressed to Jewish audiences. This itself should strike us as odd, given Paul’s own repeated claim that his mission was to the Gentiles. In any event, the most famous exception is his speech to a group of philosophers on the Areopagus in Athens (chapter 17). Here Paul explains that the Jewish God is in fact the God of all, pagan and Jew alike, even though the pagans have been ignorant of him. Paul’s understanding of pagan polytheism is reasonably clear here: pagans have simply not known that there is only One God, the creator of all, and can thus not be held accountable for failing to worship the one whom they have not known. That is to say, since they have been ignorant of the true God, rather than willfully disobedient to him, he has overlooked their false religions until now. With the coming of Jesus, though, he is calling all people to repent in preparation for the coming judgment (Acts 17:23-31).
This perspective contrasts sharply with the views about pagan idolatry that Paul sets forth in his own letters. In the letter to the Romans, for example, Paul claims that pagan idolaters are *not*….
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, go to the Members’ Site. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN ALREADY!!!
image_pdfimage_print
in
Share
.
Summing Up: Was Luke Luke? (For members)«
The Accuracy of Acts: Part 2 (For members)»
5
SEP
2013
0
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search by Keyword or User Name
Bart’s Recent Posts
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015
More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015
My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015
BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015
On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015
“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015
Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015
What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015
Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015
Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015
My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015
Archives
Select Month April 2015 (19) March 2015 (27) February 2015 (21) January 2015 (22) December 2014 (26) November 2014 (23) October 2014 (23) September 2014 (26) August 2014 (26) July 2014 (25) June 2014 (25) May 2014 (42) April 2014 (42) March 2014 (39) February 2014 (37) January 2014 (45) December 2013 (45) November 2013 (40) October 2013 (45) September 2013 (42) August 2013 (44) July 2013 (48) June 2013 (45) May 2013 (40) April 2013 (43) March 2013 (44) February 2013 (43) January 2013 (52) December 2012 (46) November 2012 (44) October 2012 (55) September 2012 (51) August 2012 (46) July 2012 (54) June 2012 (51) May 2012 (38) April 2012 (18)
Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
Latest Additions
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...
More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...
One Time Donation to Foundation
Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!
This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.
Monthy Reoccuring Donations
When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112
Enter Your Donation Amount
Login
Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Register | Lost your Password?
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design
Return to Top
http://ehrmanblog.org/accuracy-acts/
Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users
RSS
YouTube
Google+
Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
Membership
why & how to join
Philanthropy
assist the needy
Latest Posts
member & public
Member Forum
discussions
Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers
Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogThe Historical Accuracy of Acts (For members)
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...
The Historical Accuracy of Acts (For members)
You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
image_pdfimage_print
in
Share
.
The Historical Accuracy of Acts«
Who Wrote Luke and Acts?»
4
SEP
2013
25
Comments
25 Comments
0 Trackbacks
EricBrown September 4, 2013
This conundrum that begins with the mysterious “we” passages in Acts reminds me of another ancient literary peculiarity of a similar nature, with which you and your blog readers may be familiar, but if not, instead may find interesting.
In the form of the Odyssey that comes down to us, there are literally hundreds of characters introduced by name. And yet one character and only one, Eumeas the swineherd, is spoken of by the narrator in the SECOND PERSON a handful of times. It is quite odd upon reading, I can tell you. It runs a little something like this (paraphrase the idea):
“Odysseus prepared for battle, and Telemachus prepared for battle, and you, Eumeas, you also prepared for battle”
So I’ve puzzled over why this is, and I have a theory. I suspect that unlike the bible, Homer, being for long an oral corpus, is not subjected to textual criticism, so I may be the only person to ever bother to devise a theory, for what it’s worth.
Eumeas enters the picture at the end of the tale, when Odysseus finally makes it back, in cognito, to Ithaca, to find his palace, his kingdom, and his wife’s virtue under siege by a group of bullying “suitors”. Eumeas doesn’t recognize Odysseus, but when tested he reveals he is still loyal to his long-absent lord. Eventually, Odysseus, his son Telemachus, and this loyal retainer enter the palace, slay the forty or so suitors, and recover the kingdom, etc.
So why is Eumeas singled out for this second person treatment? My theory is part of the moral lesson. The oral bard who would wander about reciting this long poem certainly depended upon his host’s good graces for his meat, his pay, maybe even his head. This host, of course, would be the local chieftain or whoever, and the audience would be the chief and all of those upon whose loyalty he depended (who in those meager polities might consist primarily of the likes of swineherd/spearmen, etc). So the theory is that this is the moral of this part of the story: You listeners, right here, are of course like Eumeas, and are unshakably loyal to this chieftain over yonder with the money, who I might also add is also a handsome and generous lord….”
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 5, 2013
Interesting….
Log in to Reply
fred September 4, 2013
Luke still could have been a part-time companion of Paul’s. Raymond Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) said:
““In summary, it is not impossible that a minor figure who had traveled with Paul for small parts of his ministry wrote Acts decades after the apostle was dead, if one makes the allowance that there were details about Paul’s early life he did not know, that he simplified and reordered information (even as he did in the Gospel what he took over material from Mark), and that as a true theologian he rethought some of Paul’s emphases that were no longer apropos….”
The evangelists put words in Jesus’ mouth to make points they considered important. Why not think that “Luke” would do the same? A companion (particularly a part-time companion) needn’t necessarily have a full and complete understanding of Paul, and even if he did – perhaps he had his own ideas or his own agenda. He does seem to have the agenda of harmony in the Church.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 5, 2013
Yes, it’s certainly *possible*. (It’s what I used to think too.) One needs to look at the evidence and decide. I think there’s a better explanation for the we passages.
Log in to Reply
Jim September 4, 2013
Since the author of Luke/Acts talks about shepherds, my question is not too far off topic. ;) I have heard/read somewhere that there are more surviving copies of the Shepherd of Hermas from the first few centuries than any of the other NT books except for possibly the gospels of Matthew and John. Is this fact or fiction?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 5, 2013
Fiction. But more than some of the books, depending, of course, on how one defines “first few centuries.”
Log in to Reply
haoleboy26 September 5, 2013
Is there any good evidence or credible theories as to where Luke got his stories about Paul? Is there any evidence he would have had access to any of Paul’s letters?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 5, 2013
He never mentions the letters and never cites them. My guess is that he didn’t know them, or if he knew them, he didn’t use them for his account at all.
Log in to Reply
RonaldTaska September 5, 2013
That a companion of Paul did not know about Paul’s statement about Paul not having gone to Jerusalem and, hence, about Paul’s claim of not having been influenced by the disciples, but only influenced by Jesus, seems quite significant in determining the authorship of Acts. Thanks for outlining this. I guess it also means that the author of Acts had not read Galatians. When do we think Acts was written? After Luke, around 90 C.E.? Long after Galatians was written. Hmmm? Wouldn’t a companion of Paul know about Galatians?
Also how do you understand the author of Acts writing 3 different versions of the conversion of Paul giving different versions of whether or not those with Paul did or did not hear a voice and whether or not they remained standing or fell down with Paul?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 5, 2013
I usually date Acts around 80-85, but it’s just a guess. And I agree, he almost certainly didn’t know Galatians.
I suspect that he had three versions of the story about Paul, and just included them all….
Log in to Reply
RonaldTaska September 5, 2013
Did your publisher and you ever decide on a final title for “How Jesus Became God.”?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 5, 2013
Looks like it will be “How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee”
Log in to Reply
Steefen September 5, 2013
I do not think the letters of Paul would have been included in the canon of the Jewish Church. Paul would have been a minor character. We at Kerygma, Highland Park United Methodist Church, just finished a Summer on Acts. Paul was at odds with the Jerusalem Church. The Jerusalem Church did not like what was going on in Antioch. They send for Paul to express their disapproval. They go back and still are not happy. Reverend Marcum said the Jerusalem Church tried to get the Gentiles to adopt the Noahide Laws (food related).
We have the Jews in Jerusalem.
We have the Jesus sect, Jewish and Hellenistic in Jerusalem.
Just because the Gospels do not mention the Hellenistic Synagogue does not mean Stephen, Phillip and the five others who were selected post-Biblical-crucifixion were not active players before the biblical crucifixion.
We have the Jesus sect in Antioch.
We have the Jesus sect in Edessa and the Osrhoene because King Monobazus and Queen Helena were contemporaries of Jesus. Queen Helena gave gifts to the Temple and she saved Jerusalem from starvation. Aslan says Jesus was zealous about Jewish independence from Rome. The royal family of King Monobazus and Queen Helena were also zealous about Jewish independence from Rome. If Queen Helena of Adiabene could save Jerusalem from starvation and Rome did not and if Queen Helena could convert to Judaism and Rome did not, her royal family had reason to support the rebels in 67 C.E.
Queen Helena, King Monobaz, and their son, King Izates/Izad would have been against Paul. Why? King Izates got circumcised. Queen Helena was a Nazarite not for seven years but 14 years. They would have been against what was going on in Antioch.
Jesus, James, Queen Helena of Adiabene, King Izates of Charax-Spasini, the Hellenistic synagogue which believed in Jesus, and maybe the Therapeut (healers of souls) of Alexandria (who may or may not have done pilgrimage to the Temple and got accommodations through the Hellenistic synagogue/s) were on one side and Paul was on another side.
Rev. Marcum said, Antioch Syria was a bitter defeat for Paul.
The author of Acts could have been connected with the Gentiles of Adiabene. Queen Helena had a palace in Jerusalem.
The author could have been connected with the “Gentiles” of the Hellenistic synagogue (those who lived outside of Israel or who had family tree roots outside Israel, using Hebrew scripture written in Greek–Septuagint).
Were the Gospels and Acts composed by the Therapeaut in Alexandria at the Great Library while Jerusalem was in turmoil and ruins 67-72 C.E.? Were they composed in Rome, a peaceful place because it was the place of the victors, under Josephus’ oversight of all(?) that was published about Jerusalem?
Log in to Reply
Steefen September 5, 2013
Wait a second. Rev. Walt Marcum said Luke likes to smooth things over when you compare his telling of events vs. Paul’s telling of the same event.
Why even add Paul to Acts of the Apostles? Write him out of history? Apparently, as Paul said, he was becoming great. Both Paul and Josephus have ego issues.
Why wouldn’t they have had a meeting in Rome? Paul dies in Rome.
Paul claimed Roman citizenship.
Josephus was a Jew who became a Roman military leader.
The writings of both of them survived.
Both of them got shipwrecked.
Both of them knew Epaphraditus.
Paul earns Josephus’ respect with his letter to the Romans. Paul writes a letter that brings Christianity up to the heights of Virgil’s Aenid. I have a book that explains this. Rev. Marcum says it must not be a trade book but someone’s PhD thesis.
Dr. Ehrman speaks of the Roman Church in From Jesus to Constantine.
Unlike the Jewish Church, the Roman Church does value Paul highly, perhaps via Josephus and Epaphaditus.
Dr. Ehrman in this blog says Luke tries to butter up to Paul by saying we travelled together.
Maybe it is when Acts of the Apostles devotes itself to the Acts of Paul that we see the Jerusalem Church defer to the Roman Church.
By Paul establishing himself in Rome when James could not and when the people of the Osrhoene and Adiabene took a zealous stand against Rome because Queen Helena had put in a great bid for Jerusalem, her legacy, Rome not only gets the scriptures of the Temple via Josephus but they get Queen Helen’s golden candlestick (possibly menorah).
The Acts of the Apostles, instead of telling us the acts of 11 or 12 surviving apostles devotes a large portion to Paul. Why wouldn’t Josephus-Epaphraditus want the author of Acts to say he travelled with Paul? It is good for Paul and it is good for “Luke.”
Log in to Reply
Steefen September 6, 2013
The Gospel of God: Romans as Paul’s Aenid by David R. Wallace. I picked up the book when there was a Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit in Fort Worth, TX.
Christianity needed to overcome the Salvific message of Octavian-Virgil. Paul’s Christ does that on some level.
That is a significant contributor for the Church of Rome being successful–and successful with Gentiles.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 6, 2013
The Theapeutae were Jewish, not Christian, and they had no connection with the Alexandrian Library. And Josephus had no oversight over the publication industries of Rome.
Log in to Reply
Steefen September 7, 2013
“The Therapeutae were a Jewish sect which flourished in Alexandria and other parts of the Diaspora of Hellenistic Judaism in the final years of the Second Temple period. The primary source concerning the Therapeutae is the account De vita contemplativa (“The Contemplative Life”), purportedly by the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – 50 CE)”
The Therapeutae did not meet or visit the mystery schools, universities, and Library of Alexandria?
1. Hero/Heron of Alexandria (an inventor and contemporary of Jesus) had a wedding party trick of turning water into wine. He modified the vases for the trick.
2. The Synoptic Gospels rely on Mark. It is convincingly shown that while Paul’s letter to the Romans aspired to top Augustus-Virgil Aenid which topped Homer’s epics (see the Gospel of God by Wallace), the Gospel of Mark used Homeric literary devices (see The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark by Dennis MacDonald).
Hm, Hellenistic overlay on a Jewish teacher. This sounds like something out of Alexandria or something from its geographical network. Luke, a Gentile physician and Therapeut is physician of the soul, and “Luke” uses Mark’s Gospel with Homeric flourishes–this sounds Therapeutic also.
Josephus had no oversight over the publication industries of Rome?
Josephus was and is the person to read regarding Rome’s defeat of the Jewish rebellion.
Josephus, to use current events title, was an embedded reporter during the Jewish War.
Josephus was granted the right to pull out the scriptures at the Temple before it was destroyed.
Josephus took other historians to task–“Against Apion,” as an example.
Josephus aggressively marketed his histories from Rome to beyond the Euphrates.
Josephus was (to whatever degree self-appointed) a Jewish and Roman gatekeeper of consequence. Of course, he would give a nod to Paul who gave more importance to Jesus’ Roman crucifixion than to Jesus’ Our Father Prayer, Beatitudes, rhetorical excellence when interacting with leaders of the Roman-built, Roman client king Herod the Great’s Temple.
Log in to Reply
cheito
cheito September 5, 2013
My understanding of Luke and Acts is that the author wrote them for an individual named Theophilus.
The author also claims that the information was handed down to “us” by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. (Luke 1:2)… Who were these eyewitnesses and servants of the word who related these messages to Luke? Do we know?
Only God knows what happened to the original documents after Theophilus died or even perhaps while he was still living. Is there any record at all as to what became of the originals? And how did Luke and Acts get into the hands of the Apostolic fathers? Do we have today the same books of Luke and Acts as the The apostolic Fathers had in their possesion?
I also understand that Luke and Acts have been altered. We don’t have the exact words written down by the first author. Would you agree this is an accurate assessment? If so, then comparing what is written in Luke and Acts to what is written in the undisputed Pauline Epistles is futile. Really a waste of time. Luke and Acts are not reliable sources so how can we ascertain any real truth about the matter? Also, perhaps, the objective for altering the words of the original author, who received his account from the eyewitnesses, was to deliberately confuse and cause doubts as to what Paul or anyone of any significance really said or did or where He traveled or stayed.
That’s why I focus on the writings of the eyewitnesses themselves. God did not commissioned Luke to write these books. He took it upon himself to write them because he had a better witness than the others who were also writing about things they had not seen with their own eyes but only heard of by word of mouth and he wanted Theophilus to know the exact truth, as he states in Luke 1:1-3. On the other hand however God did speak to Paul personally. So Paul’s words are truly inspired by God and qualify as authentic scripture, but this is another issue and somewhat relevant to what I’m trying to relate here.
to sum-up if we had, without any doubts, the original words of Luke and Acts then we could put together arguments as to why Luke did not write them. But since we don’t, in my opinion, it’s a waste of time attempting to do so. Its all speculation! Whoever did write these words knew the eyewitnesses who were servants of the word from the beginning and perhaps Paul was one of them. But again since it’s obvious that these documents have been altered and words, concepts and information has been added and taken away from them then we can’t know for sure.
What do you think Dr Bartman am I making any sense?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 6, 2013
I think you are far too skeptical about not having the words of the author. When books are very long, and there are lots of manuscript witnesses, you can get a very good idea of the author’s narrative, even if portions here and there are changed. The portrayal of Paul in Acts is consistent, and is veyr difficult to ascribe to scribal rather than authorial activity.
Log in to Reply
cheito
cheito September 7, 2013
Thank you for your reply Dr Bartman. I would ask, what portions were changed? What if the very sections you’re arguing about were changed? Perhaps they focused on changing the way Acts depicts Paul.
Log in to Reply
cheito
cheito September 8, 2013
Dr Ehrman. I realized that I’ve been calling you Dr Bartman. Please excuse me for doing so…
We don’t really know WHEN or by WHOM Luke and Acts were altered. I’m assuming that these two books were in the possession of Theophilus first. Do we know how long he had them and with whom he shared them? After Theophilus died who owned them? Polycarp quoted from Luke and Acts. Did he have copies or the originals? Were they altered after or before Polycarp quoted from them? The changes to these books are subtle. Polycarp also quoted from Matthew and there are contradictions between Matthew and Luke which are not so subtle. In Matthew both criminals are insulting Christ. In Luke one criminal abuses Jesus verbally. The other criminal believes in Jesus. Both accounts can’t be true. Luke 23:39-41 and Matthew 27:43… Was Polycarp aware of these inconsistencies?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 8, 2013
There are small changes in most verses, but most of the changes are completely insignificant and uninteresting. Nowhere among al lthe changes are the we passages deleted.
Log in to Reply
cheito
cheito September 9, 2013
Since we don’t have the original manuscripts we can’t know for certain when the changes occurred or exactly what changes occurred. The only differences we know about are the ones in the manuscripts we do have. As for the We passages they would’ve been very easy to alter.
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 10, 2013
You may want to read up on textual criticism to get a sense of what is likely and what is not. If you want bibliography, well, the best place to start is with Metzger’s Text of the NT and the Alands Text of the NT. If you need more, let me know.
Osiris September 8, 2013
Can anyone help me with this? I recently summarized the problem of Paul leaving Timothy and Silas behind in Berea, along with the issue about Paul not going to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles. One of my rather cocky Christian acquaintances (a Presbyterian pastor, mind you) responded with the following and I’m not entirely sure how to approach the issue:
“There is no contradiction between Luke’s and Paul’s account of the events with respect to which companions left with Paul from Thessalonica to Athens. In short, neither Silas nor Timothy ever accompanied Paul to Athens. The two narratives convey the following series of events:
(1) Due to persecution in Thessalonica, Paul and his companions (including Silas and Timothy) made a local move to the city next door, Berea (Acts 17:10-13).
(2) While in Berea, Jews from Thessalonica discovered his whereabouts, and began to harass him there (Acts 17:13). Paul’s record that he “wanted to come to you [the Thessalonians]—I, Paul, more than once—and yet, Satan hindered us” (1 Thess. 2:18), fits best in this Berea period. For, it makes more sense that Paul would have wavered on multiple occasions to return to the Thessalonians when he was in the general vicinity (in Berea), than when he had sailed a great distance from the city and gone to Athens. Also, Paul’s record that he was hindered by “Satan” from returning to Thessalonica, recalls the intense persecution that he was experiencing at the hands of the Jews in Berea (Acts 17:13; cf. 1 Thess. 2:14-16). No such persecution marked out his stay in Athens. There, the problem was a matter of indifference to his message (Acts 17:16-34).
(3) As a result of the continued persecution in Berea Paul and his company decided that it would be best for Paul, and some escorts from among his companions, to go to Athens (Acts 17:14-15). Silas and Timothy, were to remain behind (in Berea).
(4) Upon arriving at Athens, Paul and his smaller company thought it best for Paul and a few others to remain alone in Athens (1 Thess. 3:1), while some of returned to Berea, with a command for Timothy and Silas (1 Thess. 3:1). When the two accounts are taken together, it is clear that this command had two components. First, they were to inquire one last time into the condition of the Thessalonian Christians—from whom the team had been estranged in Berea, and for whom Paul worried (1 Thess. 3:5)—and to strengthen and encourage them in the faith (1 Thess. 3:2). Second, they were to leave Thessalonica as soon as possible, in order to avoid further hostilities from their Jewish foes. On this scenario there is no contradiction, because Timothy and Silas never accompanied Paul to Athens.
(5) Upon heeding Paul’s command, Timothy and Silas left Macedonia (Acts 18:5), the region that encompassed Berea and Thessalonica, and rejoined him Greece (1 Thess. 3:6).
The uncharitable assumptions on which the alleged contradiction rests is that Timothy was with Paul’s smaller company in Athens when he was sent to the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 3:1), and that Paul’s command for Silas and Timothy to rejoin him in southern Greece could not have included their passing through Thessalonica. Not only are these assumption entirely unnecessary, they fly in the face of relevant observations. First, it was commonplace in the New Testament era for one to direct his companions/servants (from whom he was already geographically removed) to travel from city to city, through the agency of third party messengers (Acts 10:32-33; 11:13; 25:3; 2 Tim. 4:11). Therefore, serious Biblical historiography would have to consider the possibility that Timothy was sent to the Thessalonians from Berea by a third party in 1 Thess. 3:1, and not from Athens. Second, if Paul in 1 Thess. 3:1 had meant to indicate that Timothy had actually left Macedonia (Northern Greece/Albania), and accompanied him to Athens, we would expect him to have said “and we sent Timothy [back] to you.” But he does not say this, which leads should lead us to view this sending of Timothy as occurring in relative proximity to Thessalonica, from Berea. Third, from the side of the Acts account, the fact that Paul left his most trusted companions behind when he departed to Athens (Acts 17:14) leads an acute reader to gather that Paul had some business in mind for them to complete, prior to their rejoining him in southern Greece. Thus, even though Luke does not state exactly what their business was, it anticipates the answer given in 1 Thessalonians 3—upon Paul’s direction, they were to check up on the Thessalonian Church, and extend them encouragement (1 Thess. 3:2-6). And, the delimiter on Paul’s command for Timothy and Silas to rejoin him “as soon as possible” was, in fact, their completion of this reconnaissance.”
Log in to Reply
Subscribe to Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search by Keyword or User Name
Bart’s Recent Posts
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015
More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015
My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015
BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015
On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015
“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015
Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015
What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015
Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015
Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015
My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015
Archives
Select Month April 2015 (19) March 2015 (27) February 2015 (21) January 2015 (22) December 2014 (26) November 2014 (23) October 2014 (23) September 2014 (26) August 2014 (26) July 2014 (25) June 2014 (25) May 2014 (42) April 2014 (42) March 2014 (39) February 2014 (37) January 2014 (45) December 2013 (45) November 2013 (40) October 2013 (45) September 2013 (42) August 2013 (44) July 2013 (48) June 2013 (45) May 2013 (40) April 2013 (43) March 2013 (44) February 2013 (43) January 2013 (52) December 2012 (46) November 2012 (44) October 2012 (55) September 2012 (51) August 2012 (46) July 2012 (54) June 2012 (51) May 2012 (38) April 2012 (18)
Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
Latest Additions
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...
More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...
One Time Donation to Foundation
Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!
This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.
Monthy Reoccuring Donations
When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112
Enter Your Donation Amount
Login
Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Register | Lost your Password?
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design
Return to Top
http://ehrmanblog.org/historical-accuracy-acts/
Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users
RSS
YouTube
Google+
Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
Membership
why & how to join
Philanthropy
assist the needy
Latest Posts
member & public
Member Forum
discussions
Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers
Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogThe Historical Accuracy of Acts (For members)
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...
The Historical Accuracy of Acts (For members)
You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
image_pdfimage_print
in
Share
.
The Historical Accuracy of Acts«
Who Wrote Luke and Acts?»
4
SEP
2013
25
Comments
25 Comments
0 Trackbacks
EricBrown September 4, 2013
This conundrum that begins with the mysterious “we” passages in Acts reminds me of another ancient literary peculiarity of a similar nature, with which you and your blog readers may be familiar, but if not, instead may find interesting.
In the form of the Odyssey that comes down to us, there are literally hundreds of characters introduced by name. And yet one character and only one, Eumeas the swineherd, is spoken of by the narrator in the SECOND PERSON a handful of times. It is quite odd upon reading, I can tell you. It runs a little something like this (paraphrase the idea):
“Odysseus prepared for battle, and Telemachus prepared for battle, and you, Eumeas, you also prepared for battle”
So I’ve puzzled over why this is, and I have a theory. I suspect that unlike the bible, Homer, being for long an oral corpus, is not subjected to textual criticism, so I may be the only person to ever bother to devise a theory, for what it’s worth.
Eumeas enters the picture at the end of the tale, when Odysseus finally makes it back, in cognito, to Ithaca, to find his palace, his kingdom, and his wife’s virtue under siege by a group of bullying “suitors”. Eumeas doesn’t recognize Odysseus, but when tested he reveals he is still loyal to his long-absent lord. Eventually, Odysseus, his son Telemachus, and this loyal retainer enter the palace, slay the forty or so suitors, and recover the kingdom, etc.
So why is Eumeas singled out for this second person treatment? My theory is part of the moral lesson. The oral bard who would wander about reciting this long poem certainly depended upon his host’s good graces for his meat, his pay, maybe even his head. This host, of course, would be the local chieftain or whoever, and the audience would be the chief and all of those upon whose loyalty he depended (who in those meager polities might consist primarily of the likes of swineherd/spearmen, etc). So the theory is that this is the moral of this part of the story: You listeners, right here, are of course like Eumeas, and are unshakably loyal to this chieftain over yonder with the money, who I might also add is also a handsome and generous lord….”
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 5, 2013
Interesting….
Log in to Reply
fred September 4, 2013
Luke still could have been a part-time companion of Paul’s. Raymond Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) said:
““In summary, it is not impossible that a minor figure who had traveled with Paul for small parts of his ministry wrote Acts decades after the apostle was dead, if one makes the allowance that there were details about Paul’s early life he did not know, that he simplified and reordered information (even as he did in the Gospel what he took over material from Mark), and that as a true theologian he rethought some of Paul’s emphases that were no longer apropos….”
The evangelists put words in Jesus’ mouth to make points they considered important. Why not think that “Luke” would do the same? A companion (particularly a part-time companion) needn’t necessarily have a full and complete understanding of Paul, and even if he did – perhaps he had his own ideas or his own agenda. He does seem to have the agenda of harmony in the Church.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 5, 2013
Yes, it’s certainly *possible*. (It’s what I used to think too.) One needs to look at the evidence and decide. I think there’s a better explanation for the we passages.
Log in to Reply
Jim September 4, 2013
Since the author of Luke/Acts talks about shepherds, my question is not too far off topic. ;) I have heard/read somewhere that there are more surviving copies of the Shepherd of Hermas from the first few centuries than any of the other NT books except for possibly the gospels of Matthew and John. Is this fact or fiction?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 5, 2013
Fiction. But more than some of the books, depending, of course, on how one defines “first few centuries.”
Log in to Reply
haoleboy26 September 5, 2013
Is there any good evidence or credible theories as to where Luke got his stories about Paul? Is there any evidence he would have had access to any of Paul’s letters?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 5, 2013
He never mentions the letters and never cites them. My guess is that he didn’t know them, or if he knew them, he didn’t use them for his account at all.
Log in to Reply
RonaldTaska September 5, 2013
That a companion of Paul did not know about Paul’s statement about Paul not having gone to Jerusalem and, hence, about Paul’s claim of not having been influenced by the disciples, but only influenced by Jesus, seems quite significant in determining the authorship of Acts. Thanks for outlining this. I guess it also means that the author of Acts had not read Galatians. When do we think Acts was written? After Luke, around 90 C.E.? Long after Galatians was written. Hmmm? Wouldn’t a companion of Paul know about Galatians?
Also how do you understand the author of Acts writing 3 different versions of the conversion of Paul giving different versions of whether or not those with Paul did or did not hear a voice and whether or not they remained standing or fell down with Paul?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 5, 2013
I usually date Acts around 80-85, but it’s just a guess. And I agree, he almost certainly didn’t know Galatians.
I suspect that he had three versions of the story about Paul, and just included them all….
Log in to Reply
RonaldTaska September 5, 2013
Did your publisher and you ever decide on a final title for “How Jesus Became God.”?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 5, 2013
Looks like it will be “How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee”
Log in to Reply
Steefen September 5, 2013
I do not think the letters of Paul would have been included in the canon of the Jewish Church. Paul would have been a minor character. We at Kerygma, Highland Park United Methodist Church, just finished a Summer on Acts. Paul was at odds with the Jerusalem Church. The Jerusalem Church did not like what was going on in Antioch. They send for Paul to express their disapproval. They go back and still are not happy. Reverend Marcum said the Jerusalem Church tried to get the Gentiles to adopt the Noahide Laws (food related).
We have the Jews in Jerusalem.
We have the Jesus sect, Jewish and Hellenistic in Jerusalem.
Just because the Gospels do not mention the Hellenistic Synagogue does not mean Stephen, Phillip and the five others who were selected post-Biblical-crucifixion were not active players before the biblical crucifixion.
We have the Jesus sect in Antioch.
We have the Jesus sect in Edessa and the Osrhoene because King Monobazus and Queen Helena were contemporaries of Jesus. Queen Helena gave gifts to the Temple and she saved Jerusalem from starvation. Aslan says Jesus was zealous about Jewish independence from Rome. The royal family of King Monobazus and Queen Helena were also zealous about Jewish independence from Rome. If Queen Helena of Adiabene could save Jerusalem from starvation and Rome did not and if Queen Helena could convert to Judaism and Rome did not, her royal family had reason to support the rebels in 67 C.E.
Queen Helena, King Monobaz, and their son, King Izates/Izad would have been against Paul. Why? King Izates got circumcised. Queen Helena was a Nazarite not for seven years but 14 years. They would have been against what was going on in Antioch.
Jesus, James, Queen Helena of Adiabene, King Izates of Charax-Spasini, the Hellenistic synagogue which believed in Jesus, and maybe the Therapeut (healers of souls) of Alexandria (who may or may not have done pilgrimage to the Temple and got accommodations through the Hellenistic synagogue/s) were on one side and Paul was on another side.
Rev. Marcum said, Antioch Syria was a bitter defeat for Paul.
The author of Acts could have been connected with the Gentiles of Adiabene. Queen Helena had a palace in Jerusalem.
The author could have been connected with the “Gentiles” of the Hellenistic synagogue (those who lived outside of Israel or who had family tree roots outside Israel, using Hebrew scripture written in Greek–Septuagint).
Were the Gospels and Acts composed by the Therapeaut in Alexandria at the Great Library while Jerusalem was in turmoil and ruins 67-72 C.E.? Were they composed in Rome, a peaceful place because it was the place of the victors, under Josephus’ oversight of all(?) that was published about Jerusalem?
Log in to Reply
Steefen September 5, 2013
Wait a second. Rev. Walt Marcum said Luke likes to smooth things over when you compare his telling of events vs. Paul’s telling of the same event.
Why even add Paul to Acts of the Apostles? Write him out of history? Apparently, as Paul said, he was becoming great. Both Paul and Josephus have ego issues.
Why wouldn’t they have had a meeting in Rome? Paul dies in Rome.
Paul claimed Roman citizenship.
Josephus was a Jew who became a Roman military leader.
The writings of both of them survived.
Both of them got shipwrecked.
Both of them knew Epaphraditus.
Paul earns Josephus’ respect with his letter to the Romans. Paul writes a letter that brings Christianity up to the heights of Virgil’s Aenid. I have a book that explains this. Rev. Marcum says it must not be a trade book but someone’s PhD thesis.
Dr. Ehrman speaks of the Roman Church in From Jesus to Constantine.
Unlike the Jewish Church, the Roman Church does value Paul highly, perhaps via Josephus and Epaphaditus.
Dr. Ehrman in this blog says Luke tries to butter up to Paul by saying we travelled together.
Maybe it is when Acts of the Apostles devotes itself to the Acts of Paul that we see the Jerusalem Church defer to the Roman Church.
By Paul establishing himself in Rome when James could not and when the people of the Osrhoene and Adiabene took a zealous stand against Rome because Queen Helena had put in a great bid for Jerusalem, her legacy, Rome not only gets the scriptures of the Temple via Josephus but they get Queen Helen’s golden candlestick (possibly menorah).
The Acts of the Apostles, instead of telling us the acts of 11 or 12 surviving apostles devotes a large portion to Paul. Why wouldn’t Josephus-Epaphraditus want the author of Acts to say he travelled with Paul? It is good for Paul and it is good for “Luke.”
Log in to Reply
Steefen September 6, 2013
The Gospel of God: Romans as Paul’s Aenid by David R. Wallace. I picked up the book when there was a Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit in Fort Worth, TX.
Christianity needed to overcome the Salvific message of Octavian-Virgil. Paul’s Christ does that on some level.
That is a significant contributor for the Church of Rome being successful–and successful with Gentiles.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 6, 2013
The Theapeutae were Jewish, not Christian, and they had no connection with the Alexandrian Library. And Josephus had no oversight over the publication industries of Rome.
Log in to Reply
Steefen September 7, 2013
“The Therapeutae were a Jewish sect which flourished in Alexandria and other parts of the Diaspora of Hellenistic Judaism in the final years of the Second Temple period. The primary source concerning the Therapeutae is the account De vita contemplativa (“The Contemplative Life”), purportedly by the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – 50 CE)”
The Therapeutae did not meet or visit the mystery schools, universities, and Library of Alexandria?
1. Hero/Heron of Alexandria (an inventor and contemporary of Jesus) had a wedding party trick of turning water into wine. He modified the vases for the trick.
2. The Synoptic Gospels rely on Mark. It is convincingly shown that while Paul’s letter to the Romans aspired to top Augustus-Virgil Aenid which topped Homer’s epics (see the Gospel of God by Wallace), the Gospel of Mark used Homeric literary devices (see The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark by Dennis MacDonald).
Hm, Hellenistic overlay on a Jewish teacher. This sounds like something out of Alexandria or something from its geographical network. Luke, a Gentile physician and Therapeut is physician of the soul, and “Luke” uses Mark’s Gospel with Homeric flourishes–this sounds Therapeutic also.
Josephus had no oversight over the publication industries of Rome?
Josephus was and is the person to read regarding Rome’s defeat of the Jewish rebellion.
Josephus, to use current events title, was an embedded reporter during the Jewish War.
Josephus was granted the right to pull out the scriptures at the Temple before it was destroyed.
Josephus took other historians to task–“Against Apion,” as an example.
Josephus aggressively marketed his histories from Rome to beyond the Euphrates.
Josephus was (to whatever degree self-appointed) a Jewish and Roman gatekeeper of consequence. Of course, he would give a nod to Paul who gave more importance to Jesus’ Roman crucifixion than to Jesus’ Our Father Prayer, Beatitudes, rhetorical excellence when interacting with leaders of the Roman-built, Roman client king Herod the Great’s Temple.
Log in to Reply
cheito
cheito September 5, 2013
My understanding of Luke and Acts is that the author wrote them for an individual named Theophilus.
The author also claims that the information was handed down to “us” by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. (Luke 1:2)… Who were these eyewitnesses and servants of the word who related these messages to Luke? Do we know?
Only God knows what happened to the original documents after Theophilus died or even perhaps while he was still living. Is there any record at all as to what became of the originals? And how did Luke and Acts get into the hands of the Apostolic fathers? Do we have today the same books of Luke and Acts as the The apostolic Fathers had in their possesion?
I also understand that Luke and Acts have been altered. We don’t have the exact words written down by the first author. Would you agree this is an accurate assessment? If so, then comparing what is written in Luke and Acts to what is written in the undisputed Pauline Epistles is futile. Really a waste of time. Luke and Acts are not reliable sources so how can we ascertain any real truth about the matter? Also, perhaps, the objective for altering the words of the original author, who received his account from the eyewitnesses, was to deliberately confuse and cause doubts as to what Paul or anyone of any significance really said or did or where He traveled or stayed.
That’s why I focus on the writings of the eyewitnesses themselves. God did not commissioned Luke to write these books. He took it upon himself to write them because he had a better witness than the others who were also writing about things they had not seen with their own eyes but only heard of by word of mouth and he wanted Theophilus to know the exact truth, as he states in Luke 1:1-3. On the other hand however God did speak to Paul personally. So Paul’s words are truly inspired by God and qualify as authentic scripture, but this is another issue and somewhat relevant to what I’m trying to relate here.
to sum-up if we had, without any doubts, the original words of Luke and Acts then we could put together arguments as to why Luke did not write them. But since we don’t, in my opinion, it’s a waste of time attempting to do so. Its all speculation! Whoever did write these words knew the eyewitnesses who were servants of the word from the beginning and perhaps Paul was one of them. But again since it’s obvious that these documents have been altered and words, concepts and information has been added and taken away from them then we can’t know for sure.
What do you think Dr Bartman am I making any sense?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 6, 2013
I think you are far too skeptical about not having the words of the author. When books are very long, and there are lots of manuscript witnesses, you can get a very good idea of the author’s narrative, even if portions here and there are changed. The portrayal of Paul in Acts is consistent, and is veyr difficult to ascribe to scribal rather than authorial activity.
Log in to Reply
cheito
cheito September 7, 2013
Thank you for your reply Dr Bartman. I would ask, what portions were changed? What if the very sections you’re arguing about were changed? Perhaps they focused on changing the way Acts depicts Paul.
Log in to Reply
cheito
cheito September 8, 2013
Dr Ehrman. I realized that I’ve been calling you Dr Bartman. Please excuse me for doing so…
We don’t really know WHEN or by WHOM Luke and Acts were altered. I’m assuming that these two books were in the possession of Theophilus first. Do we know how long he had them and with whom he shared them? After Theophilus died who owned them? Polycarp quoted from Luke and Acts. Did he have copies or the originals? Were they altered after or before Polycarp quoted from them? The changes to these books are subtle. Polycarp also quoted from Matthew and there are contradictions between Matthew and Luke which are not so subtle. In Matthew both criminals are insulting Christ. In Luke one criminal abuses Jesus verbally. The other criminal believes in Jesus. Both accounts can’t be true. Luke 23:39-41 and Matthew 27:43… Was Polycarp aware of these inconsistencies?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 8, 2013
There are small changes in most verses, but most of the changes are completely insignificant and uninteresting. Nowhere among al lthe changes are the we passages deleted.
Log in to Reply
cheito
cheito September 9, 2013
Since we don’t have the original manuscripts we can’t know for certain when the changes occurred or exactly what changes occurred. The only differences we know about are the ones in the manuscripts we do have. As for the We passages they would’ve been very easy to alter.
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 10, 2013
You may want to read up on textual criticism to get a sense of what is likely and what is not. If you want bibliography, well, the best place to start is with Metzger’s Text of the NT and the Alands Text of the NT. If you need more, let me know.
Osiris September 8, 2013
Can anyone help me with this? I recently summarized the problem of Paul leaving Timothy and Silas behind in Berea, along with the issue about Paul not going to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles. One of my rather cocky Christian acquaintances (a Presbyterian pastor, mind you) responded with the following and I’m not entirely sure how to approach the issue:
“There is no contradiction between Luke’s and Paul’s account of the events with respect to which companions left with Paul from Thessalonica to Athens. In short, neither Silas nor Timothy ever accompanied Paul to Athens. The two narratives convey the following series of events:
(1) Due to persecution in Thessalonica, Paul and his companions (including Silas and Timothy) made a local move to the city next door, Berea (Acts 17:10-13).
(2) While in Berea, Jews from Thessalonica discovered his whereabouts, and began to harass him there (Acts 17:13). Paul’s record that he “wanted to come to you [the Thessalonians]—I, Paul, more than once—and yet, Satan hindered us” (1 Thess. 2:18), fits best in this Berea period. For, it makes more sense that Paul would have wavered on multiple occasions to return to the Thessalonians when he was in the general vicinity (in Berea), than when he had sailed a great distance from the city and gone to Athens. Also, Paul’s record that he was hindered by “Satan” from returning to Thessalonica, recalls the intense persecution that he was experiencing at the hands of the Jews in Berea (Acts 17:13; cf. 1 Thess. 2:14-16). No such persecution marked out his stay in Athens. There, the problem was a matter of indifference to his message (Acts 17:16-34).
(3) As a result of the continued persecution in Berea Paul and his company decided that it would be best for Paul, and some escorts from among his companions, to go to Athens (Acts 17:14-15). Silas and Timothy, were to remain behind (in Berea).
(4) Upon arriving at Athens, Paul and his smaller company thought it best for Paul and a few others to remain alone in Athens (1 Thess. 3:1), while some of returned to Berea, with a command for Timothy and Silas (1 Thess. 3:1). When the two accounts are taken together, it is clear that this command had two components. First, they were to inquire one last time into the condition of the Thessalonian Christians—from whom the team had been estranged in Berea, and for whom Paul worried (1 Thess. 3:5)—and to strengthen and encourage them in the faith (1 Thess. 3:2). Second, they were to leave Thessalonica as soon as possible, in order to avoid further hostilities from their Jewish foes. On this scenario there is no contradiction, because Timothy and Silas never accompanied Paul to Athens.
(5) Upon heeding Paul’s command, Timothy and Silas left Macedonia (Acts 18:5), the region that encompassed Berea and Thessalonica, and rejoined him Greece (1 Thess. 3:6).
The uncharitable assumptions on which the alleged contradiction rests is that Timothy was with Paul’s smaller company in Athens when he was sent to the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 3:1), and that Paul’s command for Silas and Timothy to rejoin him in southern Greece could not have included their passing through Thessalonica. Not only are these assumption entirely unnecessary, they fly in the face of relevant observations. First, it was commonplace in the New Testament era for one to direct his companions/servants (from whom he was already geographically removed) to travel from city to city, through the agency of third party messengers (Acts 10:32-33; 11:13; 25:3; 2 Tim. 4:11). Therefore, serious Biblical historiography would have to consider the possibility that Timothy was sent to the Thessalonians from Berea by a third party in 1 Thess. 3:1, and not from Athens. Second, if Paul in 1 Thess. 3:1 had meant to indicate that Timothy had actually left Macedonia (Northern Greece/Albania), and accompanied him to Athens, we would expect him to have said “and we sent Timothy [back] to you.” But he does not say this, which leads should lead us to view this sending of Timothy as occurring in relative proximity to Thessalonica, from Berea. Third, from the side of the Acts account, the fact that Paul left his most trusted companions behind when he departed to Athens (Acts 17:14) leads an acute reader to gather that Paul had some business in mind for them to complete, prior to their rejoining him in southern Greece. Thus, even though Luke does not state exactly what their business was, it anticipates the answer given in 1 Thessalonians 3—upon Paul’s direction, they were to check up on the Thessalonian Church, and extend them encouragement (1 Thess. 3:2-6). And, the delimiter on Paul’s command for Timothy and Silas to rejoin him “as soon as possible” was, in fact, their completion of this reconnaissance.”
Log in to Reply
Subscribe to Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search by Keyword or User Name
Bart’s Recent Posts
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015
More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015
My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015
BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015
On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015
“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015
Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015
What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015
Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015
Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015
My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015
Archives
Select Month April 2015 (19) March 2015 (27) February 2015 (21) January 2015 (22) December 2014 (26) November 2014 (23) October 2014 (23) September 2014 (26) August 2014 (26) July 2014 (25) June 2014 (25) May 2014 (42) April 2014 (42) March 2014 (39) February 2014 (37) January 2014 (45) December 2013 (45) November 2013 (40) October 2013 (45) September 2013 (42) August 2013 (44) July 2013 (48) June 2013 (45) May 2013 (40) April 2013 (43) March 2013 (44) February 2013 (43) January 2013 (52) December 2012 (46) November 2012 (44) October 2012 (55) September 2012 (51) August 2012 (46) July 2012 (54) June 2012 (51) May 2012 (38) April 2012 (18)
Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
Latest Additions
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...
More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...
One Time Donation to Foundation
Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!
This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.
Monthy Reoccuring Donations
When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112
Enter Your Donation Amount
Login
Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Register | Lost your Password?
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design
Return to Top
http://ehrmanblog.org/historical-accuracy-acts/
Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users
RSS
YouTube
Google+
Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
Membership
why & how to join
Philanthropy
assist the needy
Latest Posts
member & public
Member Forum
discussions
Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers
Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogKilling Jesus is Killing Me…. (For Members)
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...
Killing Jesus is Killing Me…. (For Members)
You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
image_pdfimage_print
in
Share
.
Killing Jesus is Killing Me«
Bill O’Reilly’s Jesus»
3
OCT
2013
37
Comments
37 Comments
0 Trackbacks
DanielBastian October 3, 2013
Well, if their (and I use ‘their’ loosely since no one really thinks O’Reilly wrote any of this) book was based exclusively on non-canonical sources of Jesus, it’d be a damn short book. Far easier to fill in the blanks with your imagination and appeal to the uneducated, gullible masses who hav just as fanciful an imagination ;)
Like you, I can’t believe they actually cited Mere Christianity as a source for the book…I mean that HAS to be a joke, right?
– Daniel
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman October 4, 2013
I wish…
Log in to Reply
TruthMan October 3, 2013
Thanks Bart for explaining. It’s just sickening to think that such a book can be published in this day and age, and worse, that millions of readers will take it as the truth — I mean, ‘as gospel’.
Log in to Reply
RonaldTaska October 3, 2013
Egads! It makes one really trust the “no-spin” accuracy of Bill’s political tirades doesn’t it?
It had never occurred to me until your recent post that the star over the manger had to move across the sky from east to west every night just like the moon and stars move across the sky. No star stays in a fixed position in the sky. Thanks.
Log in to Reply
cheito
cheito October 4, 2013
Dr Ehrman are you saying the the Gospel according to ‘Bill O’Reilly and buddy’, is as accurate as their historical sources? I feel heart-pain for the people who accept this book as Gospel truth. However God is so smart that He’ll even use this account of Jesus life, inaccurate as it is, to draw attention to the real Jesus. Just as He has used all the other apocryphal chronicles for almost two millenniums. Including Matthew and others. Will the real Jesus please stand up!
Log in to Reply
Jim October 4, 2013
Sure people can get down on Bill, but how many of us who know next to nothing about NT history wouldn’t give our left testicle to be Bill’s next buddy-co-author on a future NT project of his? I’d totally love sitting in the bar all day hammering out historical information that I made up. Then if some scholar challenged me with a question, I would just smile and say the Holy Spirit told me so go ask him. I’d never say no to getting paid for a project like that.
Log in to Reply
Rosekeister
Rosekeister October 4, 2013
I think the phrase you are looking for to describe this book is “Jesus wept.”
Log in to Reply
pakling October 4, 2013
O’Reilly did an interview with Fox Business where he identified his other “sources” as historical documentation from the time. For example, he says he included the star of Bethlehem because it was documented in “Chinese and Islamic history” (I’m not sure how there is Islamic history from the First century but that’s what he says). He also says that he believes the Gospel of John to be the most reliable gospel because John was an eyewitness to the events described, and because it is “well documented” that John himself dictated his Gospel when he was about 85 years old. 2000 years of scholarly research and all we needed was O’Reilly to research the subject to figure out everything!
Log in to Reply
Matt7 October 4, 2013
Bart,
What are your thoughts on the First Ammendment right of free speech, now that you know the consequences? Don’t we have a big problem, since any celebrity can write about any subject, and half the people in the country have less than average intelligence?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman October 4, 2013
Ah, got to have freedom of speech. And if someone exercises it, then we have the right to say, in public, that the person is a bona fide idiot!
Log in to Reply
toddfrederick October 4, 2013
Bart…I think that there is one very good reason why you should read that kind of book….it let’s you know what the average non-academic person in the churches believe about Jesus and Christianity and the great majority of those who read that book will praise God for Bill setting the story straight.
But I’m sure you already know that….:D
Log in to Reply
gmatthews
gmatthews October 4, 2013
Reza Aslan’s book I can understand, but I don’t understand why you would bother to read O’Reilly’s book no matter how many people have asked about it.
Log in to Reply
Xeronimo74 October 4, 2013
What else to expect from Bill O’Reilly!?
Log in to Reply
mark October 4, 2013
You wrote in response to a comment on Oct. 2: “I don’t think Bill O’Reilly wants an expert on his show to explain why he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” This statement is disappointing because it makes me think that you don’t know what you are talking about. Even casual viewers of The Factor know that the one thing O’Reilly is actually pretty good about is bringing all sorts of people on to his show and letting them have their say (for the most part), including criticizing him to his face. Case in point: Candida Moss writes a critical review in The Daily Beast and then gets invited on his show (and gets a plug for her book and gets to criticize him to his face), and this sort of thing has happened countless numbers of times on all sorts of topics. Don’t just take what you hear about O’Reilly in the UNC faculty lounge for Gospel truth, maybe watch his show a couple of times too before you diss him. I don’t even like O’Reilly (except for his generous charitable work), but he still deserves to be treated fairly like I’m sure you’d want to be treated.
Just do what you did for the Da Vinci Code and write a book about “Who Really Killed Jesus” and get it out on the market asap, that’s the best way to counter ‘Killing Jesus’ numerous errors and invented “facts” and deliver it to a broad audience. Just a thought.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman October 4, 2013
Don’t be disappointed! I don’t know anything about it!! (I’ve never seen the show and never will; that would be precious minutes that I would never get back….)
Log in to Reply
DMiller5842 October 7, 2013
The only thing worse than being an idiot is arguing with one. You are right not to waste your time and talent on him! :)
Log in to Reply
Elisabeth Strout October 20, 2013
Agreed. Sorry, this must be so frustrating for scholars like you to watch.
Log in to Reply
Scott F October 4, 2013
So we don’t have any SURVIVING official Roman records about Josephus, Jesus or Pilate. Does this mean that they didn’t exist? As an historian how would one know? I would appreciate even a short post on what we know about Roman and other early record keeping practices. This coomes up when dealing with apologists’ claims such as that Pliny the Younger mention of Jesus is historically useful because he would have consulted official records instead of relying on information from interviewing the Christians involved in incidents in his area.
Log in to Reply
Scott F October 4, 2013
Same thing goes for Tacitus
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman October 4, 2013
AH! That’s the problem I deal with in my book Did Jesus Exist? (Answer: yes. Evidence is overwhelming. Read the book!)
Log in to Reply
Wilusa October 4, 2013
Yikes! And in addition to what you pointed out, that first sentence of his has the “heavily armed Roman soldiers” coming from Jerusalem – implying they were stationed there. And you’ve told us there *wasn’t* a military force permanently stationed there, at least when Jesus was an adult. I’m guessing there wouldn’t have been one thirty years earlier, either.
Interesting, though, if as one poster said, O’Reilly is a Catholic, and he seems to be portraying Jesus solely as a “man.” I hope you, or someone here, will tell us enough about the book’s ending to make clear whether he affirms or denies the Resurrection. Or maybe, “covers himself” by dealing only with the death, not speculating about what followed?
Log in to Reply
webattorney October 4, 2013
I can at least say I never read any book written by Bill. I have no idea why people read his books when there are so many other better books to read. I guess I never watched one of his TV shows either, so I don’t feel compelled to read his books.
Log in to Reply
webattorney October 4, 2013
While I am at it, one question for Mr. Ehrman. I thought I heard that there were more than one source (aside from Josephus) which mentions Jesus — some account by some soldier (Roman?). Is that reliable? In short, aside from the Bible, how many other sources specifically mention Jesus Christ in their writings in any form and manner? What about one argument that if the accounts in the Gospels were not true, many contemporary people would have disputed their accounts?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman October 4, 2013
No, we have no other first century account apart from Christian source (virtually all in the NT).
Log in to Reply
ajbarnhart October 4, 2013
Thank you for eviscerating that piece of garbage. I’ve seen him touting his book as historical fact and it really chaps my ass. I was pleased to see that you, a preeminent historian of that era, have taken a few moments to bring him down a peg. I can only hope he reads your review and is embarrassed about his book.
Log in to Reply
seeker_of_truth October 4, 2013
I have to say, after saving points on my amazon.com credit card your The Bible: A Historical And Literary Introduction came this afternoon.
Oh Happy Day!
Log in to Reply
EricBrown October 4, 2013
Just to be legalistic, the gospels are “classical sources” and in at least some cases, “Jewish” ones. And if you consider that subjects of the Roman empire kept their records (ie the Gospel texts), largely faithfully from the time of their composition, then I could call that “incredible Roman record keeping.” Also, the epistles are classical sources, unless you are becoming a mythicist, Bart…..:-)
Picayune argumentation aside, there is something odd about Jesus’ crucifixion as recorded. The whole point of that form of execution was that it was extremely agonizing and it lasted a long time — days. Yet somehow he died within six hours. Never heard of a “chair” before, though.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman October 4, 2013
The problem is that he doesn’t report on the sources: he just makes things up — most things, from what I can see.
Log in to Reply
Steefen October 4, 2013
Dr. Ehrman,
Please comment on how keeping up with a subject by writing subsequent editions of a textbook might make an expert better–as a scholar, writer, recognized authority.
Subsequent editions show:
1. new conclusions have been drawn (you have said one or more items have changed for you over the years)
2. new evidence has come up
3. an expert is still on top of his game (I’ve heard of at least one instance where a recognized authority was no longer relevant)
It may be wrong that I value your Jesus Interrupted as the most important book of yours for me. Since we’re on the topic of the historical Jesus, I doubt that you will come out with a second edition of that book because it’s more for the general reader and maybe not as high as a supplemental college textbook.
Maybe I would have bought from Jesus to Constantine if it were a book. I know the video course has some sort of text that comes with it but it isn’t a word for word text version of the lectures.
The New Testament: A Historical Introduction the Early Christian Writings, 4th Ed. by you and The Text of the New Testament: Its Translation, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed. by Bruce Metzger and yourself gets me excited as I was always impressed by Paul Samuelson (and William Nordhaus) having an 18th edition of their classic Economics textbook.
So, instead of me putting Jesus Interrupted at the top of my list of your work, wouldn’t you agree that it would be fair that I put the better 4th Edition of The NT: A Historical Intro to the Early Christian Writings. Perhaps, all that you’ve put into your tradebooks flows into your textbooks?
I’d disagree because Intro textbooks to a subject aren’t advanced. That’s like saying a Freshman textbook by a scholar is better than a Masters degree textbook.
So, that leaves me with the textbook where you get second billing: The Text of the NT: It’s Translation, Corruption…
Is that really the best repository of your best work (the field’s best conclusions: 1) newest evidence, 2) newest conclusions, 3) still relevant), especially since we get a little “peer review” by Metzger being tied-in as a co-author–two people agree (and the editor, makes three)?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman October 4, 2013
Yes, these are all reasons for new editions. But they tend to happen only with textbooks, though sometimes with highly significant other books. As to what to read – it depends entirely on what you’re interested in!
Log in to Reply
JoshuaGordon October 4, 2013
What you presented here is just YIKES, The fact you attempted to read it makes you a better man than I Gunga Din !
Log in to Reply
raskel October 6, 2013
Bart:
I appreciate your hard work and all the work of scholars since the Renaissance and especially 19th century to present. But Jesus is the great mirror. Everyone looks at Jesus and sees themselves. I am not trying to make any mystical claim about Jesus/ but rather/ that is the use to which Jesus is put in this (and many) cultures. The historical Jesus runs in a parallel line to the existential Christ. Perhaps they will meet in eternity. . .
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman October 6, 2013
Well, I have to say, when I look at Jesus, I absolutely do *not* see myself!!!
Log in to Reply
raskel October 11, 2013
You see a historical person living in time defined by his cultural assumptions and revealed through the steady accumulation and careful analysis of historical clues. Yes? Maybe? Can we not make out the eyes of Bart Ehrman in this picture?
Log in to Reply
raskel October 11, 2013
How we view the person of Jesus defines who we are as human beings in this world. I don’t believe that there is a universal and correct answer for how we should define ourselves. I don’t even know what objective criterion we could turn to for adjudicating that issue. If someone fashioned an idol and told me that the idol represented what God looked like/ well/ I might disagree but I don’t see how I would objectively disprove it.
Its not that I object to treating ancient texts or the character of Jesus in history with the historical-critical method/ but rather with the idea that we ought to use the historical method or that it is the only proper approach. . . I find that idea completely unhistorical. In some cultures/ when people don’t know what to do/ they go to the priest and he throws coconut shells. In this culture/ we randomly open the Bible and read a passage. This is one of the historical uses of the Bible. Is it wrong? Would it be more justified if we used Tolstoy or Kafka?
True history is myth and true myth is history/ yes?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman October 11, 2013
Yes, I do not think history is the only game in town. But it’s a good game to play! (I don’t think there is such a thing as “objective” history though)
mackerm January 23, 2014
I just rejoined the blog and saw this post. I listened to Killing Jesus on audiobook and had the same impression. The first words should be: this fictional novel is based on a true story. The whole book was a selective restatement of the gospel narratives, in Bill’s colloquial ‘tell it like it is’ way, and I was quite aggravated by it. I wanted to quit after the first chapter, but my subconscious was telling me that I was afraid of the truth or something; so, I listened to the whole damn thing. Nothing changed. This book is not the product of any historical methodology. Bill pretends to know things he cannot prove and arbitrarily picks a side when there is a textual contradiction like Jesus’ last words. Thank you Dr. Ehrman for training me to look for these sort of things… I’m looking forward to another year of reading your posts!
Log in to Reply
Subscribe to Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search by Keyword or User Name
Bart’s Recent Posts
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015
More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015
My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015
BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015
On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015
“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015
Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015
What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015
Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015
Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015
My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015
Archives
Select Month April 2015 (19) March 2015 (27) February 2015 (21) January 2015 (22) December 2014 (26) November 2014 (23) October 2014 (23) September 2014 (26) August 2014 (26) July 2014 (25) June 2014 (25) May 2014 (42) April 2014 (42) March 2014 (39) February 2014 (37) January 2014 (45) December 2013 (45) November 2013 (40) October 2013 (45) September 2013 (42) August 2013 (44) July 2013 (48) June 2013 (45) May 2013 (40) April 2013 (43) March 2013 (44) February 2013 (43) January 2013 (52) December 2012 (46) November 2012 (44) October 2012 (55) September 2012 (51) August 2012 (46) July 2012 (54) June 2012 (51) May 2012 (38) April 2012 (18)
Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
Latest Additions
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...
More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...
One Time Donation to Foundation
Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!
This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.
Monthy Reoccuring Donations
When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112
Enter Your Donation Amount
Login
Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Register | Lost your Password?
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design
Return to Top
http://ehrmanblog.org/killing-jesus-killing-members/
Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users
RSS
YouTube
Google+
Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
Membership
why & how to join
Philanthropy
assist the needy
Latest Posts
member & public
Member Forum
discussions
Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers
Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogKilling Jesus is Killing Me…. (For Members)
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...
Killing Jesus is Killing Me…. (For Members)
You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
image_pdfimage_print
in
Share
.
Killing Jesus is Killing Me«
Bill O’Reilly’s Jesus»
3
OCT
2013
37
Comments
37 Comments
0 Trackbacks
DanielBastian October 3, 2013
Well, if their (and I use ‘their’ loosely since no one really thinks O’Reilly wrote any of this) book was based exclusively on non-canonical sources of Jesus, it’d be a damn short book. Far easier to fill in the blanks with your imagination and appeal to the uneducated, gullible masses who hav just as fanciful an imagination ;)
Like you, I can’t believe they actually cited Mere Christianity as a source for the book…I mean that HAS to be a joke, right?
– Daniel
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman October 4, 2013
I wish…
Log in to Reply
TruthMan October 3, 2013
Thanks Bart for explaining. It’s just sickening to think that such a book can be published in this day and age, and worse, that millions of readers will take it as the truth — I mean, ‘as gospel’.
Log in to Reply
RonaldTaska October 3, 2013
Egads! It makes one really trust the “no-spin” accuracy of Bill’s political tirades doesn’t it?
It had never occurred to me until your recent post that the star over the manger had to move across the sky from east to west every night just like the moon and stars move across the sky. No star stays in a fixed position in the sky. Thanks.
Log in to Reply
cheito
cheito October 4, 2013
Dr Ehrman are you saying the the Gospel according to ‘Bill O’Reilly and buddy’, is as accurate as their historical sources? I feel heart-pain for the people who accept this book as Gospel truth. However God is so smart that He’ll even use this account of Jesus life, inaccurate as it is, to draw attention to the real Jesus. Just as He has used all the other apocryphal chronicles for almost two millenniums. Including Matthew and others. Will the real Jesus please stand up!
Log in to Reply
Jim October 4, 2013
Sure people can get down on Bill, but how many of us who know next to nothing about NT history wouldn’t give our left testicle to be Bill’s next buddy-co-author on a future NT project of his? I’d totally love sitting in the bar all day hammering out historical information that I made up. Then if some scholar challenged me with a question, I would just smile and say the Holy Spirit told me so go ask him. I’d never say no to getting paid for a project like that.
Log in to Reply
Rosekeister
Rosekeister October 4, 2013
I think the phrase you are looking for to describe this book is “Jesus wept.”
Log in to Reply
pakling October 4, 2013
O’Reilly did an interview with Fox Business where he identified his other “sources” as historical documentation from the time. For example, he says he included the star of Bethlehem because it was documented in “Chinese and Islamic history” (I’m not sure how there is Islamic history from the First century but that’s what he says). He also says that he believes the Gospel of John to be the most reliable gospel because John was an eyewitness to the events described, and because it is “well documented” that John himself dictated his Gospel when he was about 85 years old. 2000 years of scholarly research and all we needed was O’Reilly to research the subject to figure out everything!
Log in to Reply
Matt7 October 4, 2013
Bart,
What are your thoughts on the First Ammendment right of free speech, now that you know the consequences? Don’t we have a big problem, since any celebrity can write about any subject, and half the people in the country have less than average intelligence?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman October 4, 2013
Ah, got to have freedom of speech. And if someone exercises it, then we have the right to say, in public, that the person is a bona fide idiot!
Log in to Reply
toddfrederick October 4, 2013
Bart…I think that there is one very good reason why you should read that kind of book….it let’s you know what the average non-academic person in the churches believe about Jesus and Christianity and the great majority of those who read that book will praise God for Bill setting the story straight.
But I’m sure you already know that….:D
Log in to Reply
gmatthews
gmatthews October 4, 2013
Reza Aslan’s book I can understand, but I don’t understand why you would bother to read O’Reilly’s book no matter how many people have asked about it.
Log in to Reply
Xeronimo74 October 4, 2013
What else to expect from Bill O’Reilly!?
Log in to Reply
mark October 4, 2013
You wrote in response to a comment on Oct. 2: “I don’t think Bill O’Reilly wants an expert on his show to explain why he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” This statement is disappointing because it makes me think that you don’t know what you are talking about. Even casual viewers of The Factor know that the one thing O’Reilly is actually pretty good about is bringing all sorts of people on to his show and letting them have their say (for the most part), including criticizing him to his face. Case in point: Candida Moss writes a critical review in The Daily Beast and then gets invited on his show (and gets a plug for her book and gets to criticize him to his face), and this sort of thing has happened countless numbers of times on all sorts of topics. Don’t just take what you hear about O’Reilly in the UNC faculty lounge for Gospel truth, maybe watch his show a couple of times too before you diss him. I don’t even like O’Reilly (except for his generous charitable work), but he still deserves to be treated fairly like I’m sure you’d want to be treated.
Just do what you did for the Da Vinci Code and write a book about “Who Really Killed Jesus” and get it out on the market asap, that’s the best way to counter ‘Killing Jesus’ numerous errors and invented “facts” and deliver it to a broad audience. Just a thought.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman October 4, 2013
Don’t be disappointed! I don’t know anything about it!! (I’ve never seen the show and never will; that would be precious minutes that I would never get back….)
Log in to Reply
DMiller5842 October 7, 2013
The only thing worse than being an idiot is arguing with one. You are right not to waste your time and talent on him! :)
Log in to Reply
Elisabeth Strout October 20, 2013
Agreed. Sorry, this must be so frustrating for scholars like you to watch.
Log in to Reply
Scott F October 4, 2013
So we don’t have any SURVIVING official Roman records about Josephus, Jesus or Pilate. Does this mean that they didn’t exist? As an historian how would one know? I would appreciate even a short post on what we know about Roman and other early record keeping practices. This coomes up when dealing with apologists’ claims such as that Pliny the Younger mention of Jesus is historically useful because he would have consulted official records instead of relying on information from interviewing the Christians involved in incidents in his area.
Log in to Reply
Scott F October 4, 2013
Same thing goes for Tacitus
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman October 4, 2013
AH! That’s the problem I deal with in my book Did Jesus Exist? (Answer: yes. Evidence is overwhelming. Read the book!)
Log in to Reply
Wilusa October 4, 2013
Yikes! And in addition to what you pointed out, that first sentence of his has the “heavily armed Roman soldiers” coming from Jerusalem – implying they were stationed there. And you’ve told us there *wasn’t* a military force permanently stationed there, at least when Jesus was an adult. I’m guessing there wouldn’t have been one thirty years earlier, either.
Interesting, though, if as one poster said, O’Reilly is a Catholic, and he seems to be portraying Jesus solely as a “man.” I hope you, or someone here, will tell us enough about the book’s ending to make clear whether he affirms or denies the Resurrection. Or maybe, “covers himself” by dealing only with the death, not speculating about what followed?
Log in to Reply
webattorney October 4, 2013
I can at least say I never read any book written by Bill. I have no idea why people read his books when there are so many other better books to read. I guess I never watched one of his TV shows either, so I don’t feel compelled to read his books.
Log in to Reply
webattorney October 4, 2013
While I am at it, one question for Mr. Ehrman. I thought I heard that there were more than one source (aside from Josephus) which mentions Jesus — some account by some soldier (Roman?). Is that reliable? In short, aside from the Bible, how many other sources specifically mention Jesus Christ in their writings in any form and manner? What about one argument that if the accounts in the Gospels were not true, many contemporary people would have disputed their accounts?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman October 4, 2013
No, we have no other first century account apart from Christian source (virtually all in the NT).
Log in to Reply
ajbarnhart October 4, 2013
Thank you for eviscerating that piece of garbage. I’ve seen him touting his book as historical fact and it really chaps my ass. I was pleased to see that you, a preeminent historian of that era, have taken a few moments to bring him down a peg. I can only hope he reads your review and is embarrassed about his book.
Log in to Reply
seeker_of_truth October 4, 2013
I have to say, after saving points on my amazon.com credit card your The Bible: A Historical And Literary Introduction came this afternoon.
Oh Happy Day!
Log in to Reply
EricBrown October 4, 2013
Just to be legalistic, the gospels are “classical sources” and in at least some cases, “Jewish” ones. And if you consider that subjects of the Roman empire kept their records (ie the Gospel texts), largely faithfully from the time of their composition, then I could call that “incredible Roman record keeping.” Also, the epistles are classical sources, unless you are becoming a mythicist, Bart…..:-)
Picayune argumentation aside, there is something odd about Jesus’ crucifixion as recorded. The whole point of that form of execution was that it was extremely agonizing and it lasted a long time — days. Yet somehow he died within six hours. Never heard of a “chair” before, though.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman October 4, 2013
The problem is that he doesn’t report on the sources: he just makes things up — most things, from what I can see.
Log in to Reply
Steefen October 4, 2013
Dr. Ehrman,
Please comment on how keeping up with a subject by writing subsequent editions of a textbook might make an expert better–as a scholar, writer, recognized authority.
Subsequent editions show:
1. new conclusions have been drawn (you have said one or more items have changed for you over the years)
2. new evidence has come up
3. an expert is still on top of his game (I’ve heard of at least one instance where a recognized authority was no longer relevant)
It may be wrong that I value your Jesus Interrupted as the most important book of yours for me. Since we’re on the topic of the historical Jesus, I doubt that you will come out with a second edition of that book because it’s more for the general reader and maybe not as high as a supplemental college textbook.
Maybe I would have bought from Jesus to Constantine if it were a book. I know the video course has some sort of text that comes with it but it isn’t a word for word text version of the lectures.
The New Testament: A Historical Introduction the Early Christian Writings, 4th Ed. by you and The Text of the New Testament: Its Translation, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed. by Bruce Metzger and yourself gets me excited as I was always impressed by Paul Samuelson (and William Nordhaus) having an 18th edition of their classic Economics textbook.
So, instead of me putting Jesus Interrupted at the top of my list of your work, wouldn’t you agree that it would be fair that I put the better 4th Edition of The NT: A Historical Intro to the Early Christian Writings. Perhaps, all that you’ve put into your tradebooks flows into your textbooks?
I’d disagree because Intro textbooks to a subject aren’t advanced. That’s like saying a Freshman textbook by a scholar is better than a Masters degree textbook.
So, that leaves me with the textbook where you get second billing: The Text of the NT: It’s Translation, Corruption…
Is that really the best repository of your best work (the field’s best conclusions: 1) newest evidence, 2) newest conclusions, 3) still relevant), especially since we get a little “peer review” by Metzger being tied-in as a co-author–two people agree (and the editor, makes three)?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman October 4, 2013
Yes, these are all reasons for new editions. But they tend to happen only with textbooks, though sometimes with highly significant other books. As to what to read – it depends entirely on what you’re interested in!
Log in to Reply
JoshuaGordon October 4, 2013
What you presented here is just YIKES, The fact you attempted to read it makes you a better man than I Gunga Din !
Log in to Reply
raskel October 6, 2013
Bart:
I appreciate your hard work and all the work of scholars since the Renaissance and especially 19th century to present. But Jesus is the great mirror. Everyone looks at Jesus and sees themselves. I am not trying to make any mystical claim about Jesus/ but rather/ that is the use to which Jesus is put in this (and many) cultures. The historical Jesus runs in a parallel line to the existential Christ. Perhaps they will meet in eternity. . .
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman October 6, 2013
Well, I have to say, when I look at Jesus, I absolutely do *not* see myself!!!
Log in to Reply
raskel October 11, 2013
You see a historical person living in time defined by his cultural assumptions and revealed through the steady accumulation and careful analysis of historical clues. Yes? Maybe? Can we not make out the eyes of Bart Ehrman in this picture?
Log in to Reply
raskel October 11, 2013
How we view the person of Jesus defines who we are as human beings in this world. I don’t believe that there is a universal and correct answer for how we should define ourselves. I don’t even know what objective criterion we could turn to for adjudicating that issue. If someone fashioned an idol and told me that the idol represented what God looked like/ well/ I might disagree but I don’t see how I would objectively disprove it.
Its not that I object to treating ancient texts or the character of Jesus in history with the historical-critical method/ but rather with the idea that we ought to use the historical method or that it is the only proper approach. . . I find that idea completely unhistorical. In some cultures/ when people don’t know what to do/ they go to the priest and he throws coconut shells. In this culture/ we randomly open the Bible and read a passage. This is one of the historical uses of the Bible. Is it wrong? Would it be more justified if we used Tolstoy or Kafka?
True history is myth and true myth is history/ yes?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman October 11, 2013
Yes, I do not think history is the only game in town. But it’s a good game to play! (I don’t think there is such a thing as “objective” history though)
mackerm January 23, 2014
I just rejoined the blog and saw this post. I listened to Killing Jesus on audiobook and had the same impression. The first words should be: this fictional novel is based on a true story. The whole book was a selective restatement of the gospel narratives, in Bill’s colloquial ‘tell it like it is’ way, and I was quite aggravated by it. I wanted to quit after the first chapter, but my subconscious was telling me that I was afraid of the truth or something; so, I listened to the whole damn thing. Nothing changed. This book is not the product of any historical methodology. Bill pretends to know things he cannot prove and arbitrarily picks a side when there is a textual contradiction like Jesus’ last words. Thank you Dr. Ehrman for training me to look for these sort of things… I’m looking forward to another year of reading your posts!
Log in to Reply
Subscribe to Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search by Keyword or User Name
Bart’s Recent Posts
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015
More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015
My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015
BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015
On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015
“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015
Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015
What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015
Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015
Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015
My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015
Archives
Select Month April 2015 (19) March 2015 (27) February 2015 (21) January 2015 (22) December 2014 (26) November 2014 (23) October 2014 (23) September 2014 (26) August 2014 (26) July 2014 (25) June 2014 (25) May 2014 (42) April 2014 (42) March 2014 (39) February 2014 (37) January 2014 (45) December 2013 (45) November 2013 (40) October 2013 (45) September 2013 (42) August 2013 (44) July 2013 (48) June 2013 (45) May 2013 (40) April 2013 (43) March 2013 (44) February 2013 (43) January 2013 (52) December 2012 (46) November 2012 (44) October 2012 (55) September 2012 (51) August 2012 (46) July 2012 (54) June 2012 (51) May 2012 (38) April 2012 (18)
Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
Latest Additions
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...
More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...
One Time Donation to Foundation
Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!
This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.
Monthy Reoccuring Donations
When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112
Enter Your Donation Amount
Login
Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Register | Lost your Password?
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design
Return to Top
http://ehrmanblog.org/killing-jesus-killing-members/
Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users
RSS
YouTube
Google+
Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
Membership
why & how to join
Philanthropy
assist the needy
Latest Posts
member & public
Member Forum
discussions
Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers
Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogFreedom From Religion Foundation Lecture
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...
Freedom From Religion Foundation Lecture
On May 3 of this year I gave a lecture at a meeting of the Freedom from Religion Foundation in Raleigh NC. The lecture is about what it is like to be an agnostic who writes about religion. That’s an irony that I am constantly aware of and most of the lecture is about my experience as a non-religious person who is an expert in something he doesn’t believe in.
I also used the lecture to stress that being “free from religion” is not the same thing as “attacking religion.” I absolutely agree with the founding principle of the FFRF that no religion (of any kind, Christian or otherwise) should be imposed on us by the state. But I do not at *all* think that this is the same thing as being opposed to religion. I am personally not opposed to religion or people who practice it (although I *am* quite definitely opposed to fundamenalist kinds of religion — whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever). And I think organized agnostic/atheist/secular/humanist attacks on religion per se are wrong-headed and (just as important) counter-productive. In any event, I get into all that in my lecture, found here. (I hope you like the statue I was given for the Emperor Has No Clothes Award !):
Please adjust gear icon for 720p High-Definition:
image_pdfimage_print
in
Share
.
Suggested Donation for the Blog«
Clarification!»
16
AUG
2014
122
Comments
122 Comments
0 Trackbacks
Matilda
Matilda August 16, 2014
I think a lot of problems would be solved by coming up with a definition of what God is. I think a lot of religious people really don’t believe in a Biblical God except fundamentalists. The new God is “pure love” I’ve been told. Then there is the “who knows what God is” but there is certainly something more. When talking about belief in God people should be clear about what they mean.
I like what you have said about the different types of god, Bart . I have come to learn that religion is mostly a hoax- maybe a well meaning hoax but non-the-less a hoax.
Log in to Reply
Bethany
Bethany August 17, 2014
I recently read Karen Armstrong’s “A History of God” which argued, among other things:
(1) There isn’t any one “Biblical God”. (I also recently read several interesting books discussing the development of Jewish monotheism and pointing out many places in the Jewish Bible where you can see the remnants of the older polytheistic traditions that monotheism arose from.
(2) Far from being the only ones to hold the “traditional” view of God, the view held by fundamentalists is a recent development and theologically unsophisticated compared to many older views of God.
I found it an interesting book.
Personally, I’d argue that if you’ve come up with a definition of God, then you know right there your definition is incomplete.
Log in to Reply
VandaBlair August 19, 2014
I won’t say that I ‘know’ this as the reason, but a lot of religious people have redefined their definition of God as a way of shifting the goal posts. It’s a way to avoid certain arguments that might at least question the validity of their beliefs. That’s why there are so many vague definitions floating around.
The more we debate the existence of God, the more people will change their definition of God in order to fit a round peg into a square hole. Suffering being round, God being square for example. The last thing believers I talk to will do is give up their belief.
(It follows from something I have seen in most former believers I have met. They go through something similar to the Five Stages of Grief and Loss: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. All they want at the bargaining stage is to reach a workable compromise and not have to go further into the process of losing their faith.)
So I don’t see a clear and precise definition of God coming any time soon from those that believe.
Log in to Reply
Hana1080 August 16, 2014
I apologize that at times my comments digress BUT they do pop up at odd times too while reflecting on what I’ve been reading .. Can the historical and current racism against the Jewish people be linked to Christianity in general and specifically the Gospel of John?
Log in to Reply
Hana1080 August 16, 2014
If so, I am in fact horrified.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 17, 2014
Not just to John, but in my view there was no such thing as anti-Judaism per se until Christainity arose.
Log in to Reply
Rosekeister
Rosekeister August 17, 2014
Do you think the anti-Judaism arose because of the gospels or did the gospels reflect a growing anti-Judaism in the gentile churches? And for that matter, did this anti-Judaism arise because the NT documents were written in the run-up and during the Jewish wars against Rome or because, despite Jewish followers of Jesus, most of the Jews did not accept the Christian claims of Jesus as the Messiah?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 19, 2014
Yes, I think anti-Judaism affected the Gospels andt he Gospels affected anti-Judaism, and that it all is tied directly to Jews not accepting messianic claims.
Log in to Reply
ksutherland August 28, 2014
messianic claims…. about Jesus. From what I understand Jews had messianic ideas but they did not align with the claims that Jesus was the messiah?
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 29, 2014
I talk about this in several of my books — you might see the discussion, for example, in Jesus Interrupted.
Hana1080 August 18, 2014
Reading your affirmation literally gave me chills right now … how horrific. Then this is one of the worst examples of Religious imperialism.
Log in to Reply
willow August 19, 2014
Odd, isn’t it? Considering the fact that Jesus was not ever a Christian, but always a Jew.
Log in to Reply
willow August 19, 2014
P.S., As for the statue, well, it is so rather amusingly interesting. And shiny.
Log in to Reply
ksutherland August 28, 2014
Interesting thought…. with Jesus being Jewish…. he would be familiar with the particular prophetic scriptural references and therefore would never claim to be the messiah (?)
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 29, 2014
I think Jesus did understand himself to be the messiah. You might look at my discussion in How Jesus Became God.
prestonp September 10, 2014
What do we call the history of the persecution of the jews before christianity arrived? Did Christ promote anti-Judaism?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 10, 2014
What persecutions of the Jews before Christianity are you thinking of? There were sometimes political issues in Palestine (and in Alexandria). But I don’t know of any persecutions of Jews for being Jewish (other than a general sense that barbarians — such as Jews and Ethiopians and Gallic tribes and so on — had very peculiar customs that could easily be mocked. I certainly don’t think Jesus wsa anti-Jewish. Just the contrary. But his later followers certainly *became* anti-Jewish.
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 12, 2014
This didn’t make it and I don’t know why. Jews have been under attack since god chose Abe and his descendants as his very own people.
Can you be specific regarding his followers who were anti-Semitic? How does a follower hate someone and be a follower?
14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death. 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 12, 2014
I am supposed to be writing a book soon (though it won’t be soon) on the rise of Christian anti-semitism (it didn’t exist before Christianity). But you might try Rosemary Ruether’s classic, Faith and Fratricide.
pdahl August 16, 2014
Toward the end of your most candid FFRF lecture you mentioned some very smart people close to you who I presume are well aware of all the historical points you made in *How Jesus Became God* and yet still consider that Jesus indeed *was/is* God.
I have three brief questions about this. 1. Do they understand your historical points about Jesus in HJBG but simply disagree with them or that these points bear upon Jesus’s divine status? 2. Or is that that they agree with your arguments but nonetheless still think Jesus was/is God, albeit for other reasons than those you address in the book? 3. Ultimately, then, why do these smart people close to you think that Jesus was/is God?
Having read HJBG twice by now — and thanks so much for writing it, by the way — I was impressed by the sheer amount of logic, empiricism, and reason that underpins virtually all of your carefully crafted arguments. Others will no doubt rebut you based on their preference for advocating from tradition, authority, and/or dogma. And maybe therein lies at least a partial psychological answer to my own questions — namely, that for some people logic, empiricism, and reason simply trump tradition, authority, and dogma, whereas for others it’s just the other way around. Your thoughts?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 17, 2014
They are theologically sophisticated people who realize that Jesus could be God even if he never said so and that this view was not recognized until later, long after his death. They think this not for historical reasons but for theological reasons, and argue that history is not hte only (or even the best) gateway to truth. On that I agree with them.
Log in to Reply
Rosekeister
Rosekeister August 17, 2014
A good post or even series of posts would be on how extremely intelligent, highly educated, theologically sophisticated people define God and in what way Jesus could be this God.
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 10, 2014
“Others will no doubt rebut you based on their preference for advocating from tradition, authority, and/or dogma.”
Others use reason, science, history, common sense and written and natural revelation that has withstood every argument for thousands of years to come to grips with his divinity. Additionally, there isn’t one speck of proof that jesus wasn’t exactly who he said he was. Quite the contrary, all known evidence makes an air-tight case for his divinity.
To attempt to reduce the reasons why people believe in him to “dogma, authority and tradition” is a clever? way to try to hide the contempt of the christhaters. It isn’t subtle but it is a popular way to convey the bias many anti-christians use to express and to justify their hatred.
These “haters” will not say, “Christians are stupid, subservient idiots to believe that nonsense” on Dr. Bart’s blog.
This won’t make it as a post for the reasons I just listed.
Log in to Reply
willow August 19, 2014
Thanks for asking the questions I hesitated to ask, pdahl!
Log in to Reply
DonakdDHeacock August 16, 2014
What is your opinion of Robert Eisenman’s work on James.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 17, 2014
Eisenman is very smart and he knows a lot of things. And I think he is dead wrong about James.
Log in to Reply
asjsdpjk August 19, 2014
It would be amazingly intrresting if you could elaborate on that some time!
Log in to Reply
DonakdDHeacock August 24, 2014
Thank you Bart I have written on one other occasion (About Barbara Thiering) Please give us a short sketch of Eisenman’s view of James and yours.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 25, 2014
OK, interesting idea. I’ll think about it!
Log in to Reply
ksutherland August 28, 2014
This would be very interesting! *toothy grin!*
Rosekeister
Rosekeister August 16, 2014
That was a stirring challange to the humanist associations near the end of your talk. It prompts me to ask if you think that the traditional view of religion is too small? That a religious worldview does not have to involve Jesus or the Buddha (or anyone else) as a founding figure, an institutional church, a set of required beliefs, faith in creeds or a belief in a personal (or impersonal) god. That a religious worldview could be more along the lines of taking personal responsibility for your choices and the way you live without the need for the reward of heaven or the pushment of hell. Having a blog to raise money for charity seems a religious choice in which views on faith and theism seem irrelevant.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 17, 2014
Yes, defining religion is unbelievably difficult, as it turns out. Some undergraduate courses in colleges and universities spend an entire semester problematizing the term!
Log in to Reply
Hana1080 August 16, 2014
I’d like to clarify a point. Is then the mystical traditions (and for discussion I’ll isolate Vision although mysticism encompasses a broader range of sensory phenomena) including not only Christianity but Hinduism and Buddhism considered to be in fact only hallucinations?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 17, 2014
No, there is a lot more to mysticism than that!
Log in to Reply
Hana1080 August 18, 2014
Yes I think so too but as I haven’t read this book yet as I am engrossed in another one of yours at the moment, will wait to read and better understand why you think Christ’s appearance was hallucinations and not Vision?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 19, 2014
Hallucinations are one kind of vision. (Visions can be things that are really there, or things not really there. If not really there, they are hallucinations.)
Log in to Reply
Hana1080 August 20, 2014
Thank you. I agree with your definition … Visions are there :) !! lol Succinct and to the point. Made me laugh. But you do not consider the appearance of the resurrected Christ a Vision? (I apologize if you do in your book as I haven’t read it yet .. working on another )
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 20, 2014
Yes, it was a vision. But a non-veridical one, in my opinion (i.e., a hallucination).
Hana1080 August 22, 2014
Well then I’m eager than to read this chapter and your working definitions and why the visions were non-verdical. Thank you.
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 23, 2014
In my book I leave open the question of whether or not they were veridical. But as a non-believer, of course, I do not think they were veridical. Otherwise I would be a believer!
gabilaranjeira August 16, 2014
Great talk, especially when you emphasize the role (or lack of) of religious and non-religious groups on social and humanitarian issues. This talk was a perfect combination of knowledge, tolerance and service to others. I’m a big fan of yours.
Log in to Reply
toejam August 17, 2014
Good stuff. Have you ever had much of a chance to speak to Dan Barker in private? What are your thoughts on him? You two must have a lot in common – going from evangelical fundamentalists to world famous atheists. Though it seems both of you gone about responding to your deconversions in very different ways – Dan being more of an ‘active’ atheist, for lack of a better term.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 17, 2014
We’ve talked some, but never at any great length.
Log in to Reply
RonaldTaska August 17, 2014
I look forward to hearing the lecture. Thanks for sharing it. I think the problem comes for me when religion does harm such as with religious wars, or its push against gay marriage, or its opposition to the teaching of evolution, or its attitude against women leaders and clergy. So, don’t you think religion of that sort, even if it’s not fundamentalist, needs to be opposed?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 19, 2014
No, I don’t think religion itself is to blame. People are. And people would find some other ideological reason to do evil things, if they couldn’t rely on religion to provide it….
Log in to Reply
Hana1080 August 18, 2014
In the video you said that Jesus becoming God was paramount to the spread of Christianity and I’ve been thinking about this and wondering why was IT necessary? You said that Christianity would not have spread but would have remained a Jewish sect without this Interpretation? But why? I don’t grasp the collective importance. In the church I attended in my youth, Jesus was not thought of as God … but again as I am fairly new at reading in depth maybe I should be doing more of my own homework before taking your time?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 19, 2014
Because Gentiles were not about to convert to become Jewish, and if Christianity remained a Jewish sect, that’s what Gentiles would have had to do..
Log in to Reply
Hana1080 August 20, 2014
Without my being too tedious, so the Gentiles would have had to make Jesus a God in order to remove him from the Jewish religion and establish Jesus as their own? Reflecting last night on what I’ve been reading on your site, for me what I read is both highly emotional as well as intellectual. Emotional because although I’ve read a couple of your books before, they never struck home as they are now turning in my mind Christianity upside down. Can’t wait to discuss these points with my beloved Godmother who is a Trappist abbess. :)
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 20, 2014
Not exactly. There were also Jews who understood Jesus to be God. But if Christianity stayed a sect within Judaism, then becoming Christian would involve becoming Jewish, and all that might entail (typically: circumcision; sabbath observance; kosher food laws; festivals; and so on), and most pagans simply didn’t want to go there.
Log in to Reply
Hana1080 August 18, 2014
I’m almost afraid to ask this question and possibly it should not be published respectfully .. how much of a jump then is it then that the Nazis exploited the Christian founded racism and therefore in some fundamental degree Christianity also shares responsibility? Why am I afraid to ask the question ? .. because I am extremely careful when combining the word Nazi with anything.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 19, 2014
My view is that modern forms of anti-semitism are unthinkable without an entire history of anti-Judaism from early modernity, back to the Middle Ages, and back to Late Antiquity. And anti-Judaism in Late Antiquity is unthinkable without the rise of Christianity.
Log in to Reply
Hana1080 August 20, 2014
Gasp … That’s a lot of blood on “ones” collective heads. (My belief system includes philosophical concepts of karma)
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 23, 2014
” And anti-Judaism in Late Antiquity is unthinkable without the rise of Christianity.”
Specifically, whose christianity do you refer?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 23, 2014
The world’s.
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 23, 2014
Often, the distinction between institutions that use words and phrases of a religious nature, that have nothing to do with following Christ, and those who follow him in loving devotion, is ignored. Sometimes intentionally, critics will combine them under one heading, christianity. It smears those who honor him with ugly, egregious behavior and attitudes without merit as It exalts institutions bloodied in chains of history as ambassadors of god somehow, when he had nothing to do with them.
The white man should know better by now. We have lived through our black brothers and sisters valiant struggle to shed similar kinds of stigmas.
prestonp August 25, 2014
You, too, when you were a christian, supported anti-Semitism? Did that have anything to do with your religious experience or was it promulgated by any of your brothers and sisters in the Lord? Rhetorical. No need to answer.
shakespeare66 August 18, 2014
I especially liked the fact that you asked the FFRF to make a “name” for itself by doing what Christian groups do—help other people. I have also taken the position to my friends that religion does a lot of good for people, and religion does a lot of good for people and so I do not condemn it. I just think that those who condemn it must at least offer some concomitant help for those less fortunate in the world. I love that idea, and it makes perfect sense–one has to replace the “old” group with a new “group” that has some purpose. I hope you get my drift. This was an excellent talk and a great presentation of your beliefs and your work When Jesus Became God.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 19, 2014
Thanks. I’m not sure everyone there appreciated that point all that much! :-)
Log in to Reply
toejam August 22, 2014
My concern with this is that most agnostics/atheists don’t advertise their philanthropy/charity *in the name of* agnosticism/atheism. I’ve always found it odd when people do that. There are plenty of secular charity organisations who do good for good’s sake – not in the name of “atheism” or “anti religion”. Those are the organisations that I donate towards. The FFRF’s goals are to help maintain the separation of church and state, offer support for those who have left their faith, and to help expose the superstitions of some of the world’s religions. Those are worthy goals – The FFRF should not be expected to “compete” with religious aid for the purpose of winning over converts. That to me would be just as sus as when religions do aid in order to win over converts.
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 25, 2014
“My concern with this is that most agnostics/atheists don’t advertise their philanthropy/charity *in the name of* agnosticism/atheism.”
How would you know whether agnostics/atheists participate in philanthropy/charity?
Log in to Reply
Wilusa August 18, 2014
“I am personally not opposed to religion or people who practice it (although I *am* quite definitely opposed to fundamenalist kinds of religion — whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever).”
I have a bit of a problem with this. As I see it, given my personal views, the most “liberal” form of religion is just as *wrong* as “fundamentalist” forms. So why “oppose” one and not the other? Personally, I don’t “oppose” either. Some people holding fundamentalist views seem to derive great comfort from their faith.
Of course, there can be problems with the definition of “fundamentalist.” I *do* oppose those who seek to force their religious views on others, or prevent people “born into” their faith from leaving it.
And I’m very uncomfortable with religions being allowed to have *schools* . How can people have “freedom of religion” if they’re indoctrinated almost from the cradle? I wish all our youth were in public schools, with the churches being allowed no more than “Sunday school” or its equivalent. I endured many years of Catholic schooling, and eventually became an agnostic – the thing I’m proudest of in my life. But should it be necessary for individuals to resist indoctrination? I truly don’t know.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 19, 2014
I don’t think we should oppose views because they are *wrong*. If they are wrong, we simply should not adhere to them. But we should oppose views that are *dangerous*. Liberal religion is very rarely dangerous. Love one another; live and let live; be kind to strangers; do good to all. Liberal religion teaches such things, and even though I don’t agree with the religious views themselves, I agree with the ethical results.
Log in to Reply
Wilusa August 20, 2014
As I said, I don’t oppose religions because I believe they’re wrong (wrong *intellectually*). Like you, I would only actively oppose those that are *dangerous*.
I think where we differ is on the definition of fundamentalism. For most of my life, I would have defined a “fundamentalist” as a person who, if asked, would say he or she believed literally in the Biblical account of creation. (And probably, would say offhand that he or she believed everything in the Bible was true.) That’s it! If they were Catholic, it was likely that (a) they’d never *read* the Bible, and (b) those “beliefs” didn’t impact their *lives* at all.
And I would have thought of active, *aggressive* fundamentalists as being obsessed with denying evolution.
I do have that concern about religious schools…indoctrination. I really don’t know where the line should be drawn -the distinction between being free to practice the religion of your choice, and being free to indoctrinate children by telling them they already *are*, from birth, Catholics or whatever.
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 25, 2014
I do have that concern about anti-religious schools…indoctrination. I really don’t know where the line should be drawn. The state of our public schools is appalling. Metal detectors will be mandatory, not just in our inner cities like philadelphia, but across the nation, imo.
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 25, 2014
And I’m very uncomfortable with anti-religious groups being allowed to have *schools*. How can people have the right to worship freely if the government interferes with that constitutionally protected right?
Log in to Reply
shakespeare66 August 19, 2014
While watching the question and answer session, I noticed that the person who asked about the existence of Christ did not believe what you said even after putting the “world” of scholarship behind it ( your book Did Jesus Exist? and other scholars work). I assume that because you apologized by saying “I sympathize with your view, but…” This led me to think that these mythicists are doing the same thing as what fundamentalists do in the face of overwhelming evidence–they just don’t believe it. It is ironic that they do what they protest against. I suppose all you can do is to present what you know, and let the chips fall where they may. I am often stunned by how flippant fundamentalists are about the work of a scholar ( as my fundamentalist preacher “friend” casts you off like you are nobody). I said “How can you think that you know more or better than a man who has spent his life working on these issues?” She said, “I studied at Princeton Theological Seminary!” I said “Really? and you think you know as much as he does?” It was a circular discussion, and I quickly decided that we would no longer engage in any discussion about religion. She is certainly not open to it. So how do you continue to go on in the face of this kind of opposition?
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 25, 2014
“I am often stunned by how flippant fundamentalists are about the work of a scholar…”
Christians, too, are often stunned at deniers’ willingness to ignore overwhelming evidence that jesus is Christ.
Log in to Reply
shakespeare66 August 25, 2014
Jesus is Christ? What does that mean? What Christians lack (too often) is a willingness to investigate the knowledge that is out there about a variety of things. How stunning is it that 64% of Christians in this country deny evolution? I think that is beyond stunning. It is mind boggling. Try reading Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True. Oh, I’m sorry. People like you don’t read stuff like that because you can find all the answers in the Bible so you don’t need to read anything else. And even if you DID read it, you would still deny it it true and say it is a hoax or a conspiracy or some such nonsense. It is OKAY for you to live in your fantasy world. We don’t begrudge you living there, but please son’t step on my understanding of the world, of Jesus Christ, of evolution, of being gay, of anything that your “perfect” little moral Bible tells you is right about proper decorum for the world. Christians should be stunned at how flippant we can be about the life of Christ. I have read the 15 or so books that Dr. Ehrman has written on the subject because I wanted to know what scholars are saying about this subject. No one wants to take away your belief or your faith. Just leave those who don’t care for it alone. Instead of quoting me, ask a pertinent question—you might learn something for once in your life.
Log in to Reply
shakespeare66 November 3, 2014
There is no overwhelming evidence.
Log in to Reply
prestonp November 1, 2014
“This led me to think that these mythicists are doing the same thing as what fundamentalists do in the face of overwhelming evidence–they just don’t believe it.” Shake
There is no evidence that proves what you say. None.
Log in to Reply
shakespeare66 November 3, 2014
Why is there a large group of mythicists? The facts are all over the intrrnet!
Log in to Reply
Steefen August 19, 2014
Sorry, I’m 7 minutes into this and my orientation is yelling a big grumble. My Ancient Roman orientation is the Roman imposition that you bless the state, you bless the emperor. You express goodwill and cooperation to the state and you express goodwill and cooperation to the emperor. Why? Because a state is a fragile thing. The Republic fell. The Empire rose. Emperors were assassinated, went crazy, etc. The Empire fell.
So, it’s like you’re jumping to an irresponsible conclusion.
Bart Ehrman:
Freedom from religion does not mean opposing religion.
Freedom from religion means opposing the imposition of someone else’s religion on us.
StephenOABC:
But, we do not have Julius Caesar’s nephew in D.C. We do not have a fallen Republic raised to greatness by Augustus; Augustus who set the direction for the Roman Empire’s imperial cult, and as a result, Rome arguably was not a secular state.
Before I agree with you, the question must be posed: would you have wanted freedom from religion in the religious pluralism of Ancient Roman territory first century B.C.E. and first century C.E., Judea or anywhere else?
Was Rome a good influence, religiously, upon the areas it influenced?
Do you disagree with Paul, Dr. Ehrman?
Judaism did offer sacrifices for the emperor. When it stopped, the Jewish Revolt was on.
So, you’re a proponent of religious isolationism–putting religion in a closet, a bathroom, closed-door activity? Once people get together and really talk this through, we can agree on the lowest common denominators:
God is impersonal therefore persons need not interact with an impersonal God.
Problem: people will awe at the Grand Canyon, an impersonal object.
God is the Sun and the operation of its Solar System, provider of day and night. The Sun grounds us–keeping us from floating out into the Milky Way.
Some will say, this sets us back to Constantine’s pre-Christian Sol Invictus and possibly to Akhen-aten’s Power behind the Sun.
God is Authority and the ideal of Good Authority is partially how God gets personified.
Problem: assigning the attribute of authority to God is not a lowest common denominator of God. Authority is subject to interpretation.
In conclusion, if one takes the stance of Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, does your case really hold up against these? Would you be a Jewish zealot, rebel/bandit on this issue?
After applying your answer to the times of the emperors, we can see if your answer can apply to our current case.
Thank you.
Log in to Reply
Steefen August 21, 2014
Finished watching.
Jesus is God in the gospel of John, not so much in the Synoptics was thought-provoking. It, to me, shows a contradiction in the New Testament.
I would go further and say Jesus is not so much God in the Acts of the Apostles.
As you mentioned months ago, Jesus becomes God in the works of Paul.
“A religion needs a god: Jesus had to become God.” This helps separate Christianity from Judaism.
For Jesus to have existed with God, one should ask where was Jesus when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
Sorry, I don’t see Jesus as God. Jesus may be a third of a trinity, Jesus may be Lord, with authority over some areas. Jesus is a little light on his Heavenly Father being the Creator. His Father-God is a personification of “Life will work out, so, don’t concern yourself with what will you wear, what will you eat, you have enough problems for today.” Yes, the Earth was a place of abundant resources. When famine came to Judea, Prince-to-King Izates and Queen Helena fed the people, don’t worry. (We can say Prince and King Izates because he was a king of a small kingdom.) Yes, I can hear King Izates-Jesus speaking to the people as he fed them.
You can say Jesus became God but what was the quality of that notion of God? What is the quality of the claim? Jesus could have talked Adam & Eve out of the Fall. All Jesus had to do was tell Adam and Eve to say, “Get behind me Satan” (and, “I’m not yielding to your temptation” or “lead us, Adam & Eve, not into temptation.”
So, you’ve helped me see a major flaw in the Gospel of John.
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 23, 2014
“A religion needs a god: Jesus had to become God.” This helps separate Christianity from Judaism.
Did jesus indicate he needed a religion?
“For Jesus to have existed with God, one should ask where was Jesus when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.”
Why?
“His Father-God is a personification of ‘Life will work out, so, don’t concern yourself with what will you wear, what will you eat, you have enough problems for today.’”
Do you see a problem?
Log in to Reply
Steefen August 25, 2014
Did Jesus indicate he needed a new religion? It seems he indicated it to Paul and he indicated it to James who allowed Gentiles some leeway with respect to religious customs of Judaism.
It’s almost irrelevant whether or not Jesus indicated he needed a religion.
1) Remember or read The Grand Inquisitor by Fyodor Dostoyevsky.
2) Jesus’ own succession plan failed. He did not need a religion if the Jewish people would have supported him in the first incarnation/coronation as Son of Man of the Kingdom of Heaven/Righteousness with Star Prophecy as harbinger. So, Titus fulfilled the prophecies of the Son of Man, then, he became Emperor, and you might as well say when he died, he was deified like his father and now sits at the right hand of his deified father, Vespasian.
The irrelevancy. If Jesus’s Son of Man movement had succeeded, there would have been no need for him to start a new religion because Judaism would have been fulfilled and victorious. People would have come. Judaism would have grown had it delivered on Jesus’ promise of a kingdom of righteousness.
“For Jesus to have existed with God, one should ask where was Jesus when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.” Why?
John 8:58 (Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.)
Well, either Jesus would have allowed God’s will to be done and he could find another garden where he could agonize over this or his “Good Father” notion of God would have created a different test of Abraham’s loyalty.
according to Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz (Chief Rabbi of the British Empire), child sacrifice was actually “rife among the Semitic peoples,” and suggests that “in that age, it was astounding that Abraham’s God should have interposed to prevent the sacrifice, not that He should have asked for it.” Hertz interprets the Akedah as demonstrating to the Jews that human sacrifice is abhorrent. “Unlike the cruel heathen deities, it was the spiritual surrender alone that God required.” In Jeremiah 32:35, God states that the later Israelite practice of child sacrifice to the deity Molech “had [never] entered My mind that they should do this abomination.” – Binding of Isaac in Wikipedia
Hm, It’s certainly in Genesis. God denies?! in Jeremiah. It comes back to mind in the first century with the Father and Son of the gospels–the Father not taking away this cup from Jesus. It also comes back when God allows the food supply for Jews to be destroyed during the Jewish Revolt and some of the people started eating any and everything, including the food of cannibalism (see Cannibal Mary, an account in Josephus’ Wars of the Jews).
prestonp asked do I see a problem with this: “His Father-God is a personification of ‘Life will work out, so, don’t concern yourself with what will you wear, what will you eat, you have enough problems for today.’” Yes, prestonp, I see a problem: Some people who follow this become victims and they do not rise to the top to enforce this idyll for all.
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 25, 2014
Whom was he addressing?
prestonp August 31, 2014
“Jesus’ own succession plan failed”
How? What was his succession plan, exactly?
prestonp September 11, 2014
“I see a problem: Some people who follow this become victims and they do not rise to the top to enforce this idyll for all.”
Who specifically?
prestonp September 11, 2014
“prestonp asked do I see a problem with this: “His Father-God is a personification of ‘Life will work out, so, don’t concern yourself with what will you wear, what will you eat, you have enough problems for today”
Who said that?
Macavity August 20, 2014
Thanks for posting this lecture. I found it to be possibly the most valuable and interesting of all your lectures/debates I’ve watched.
However, I was surprised to hear you say (41 min): “They ended up with the idea that there are three distinct beings all three of whom are fully God – they’re distinct from one another, they’re all fully God, they’re all equally God – but there is only one God. That’s the doctrine of the trinity, that’s there’s one God manifest in three persons. And it doesn’t make sense rationally and it’s not meant to make sense rationally.”
If I understand you correctly you are saying that the doctrine of the trinity says there are three beings all of whom are God and that God is only one being. So, God is one being and God is not one being which obviously is a contradiction.
I thought the classical (4th and 5th century church fathers) definition of the doctrine of the Trinity goes something like this: God is of one essence (being), God is a plurality of persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and the words being and person do not denote the same thing. That statement is not a logical contradiction. Of course, just because a statement isn’t logically contradictory doesn’t make it true.
Wouldn’t it be simpler and less controversial just to say that you know of no compelling evidence to believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is true and leave it at that—rather than creating a paradoxical/nonclassical version of the doctrine of the Trinity and concluding that it is not worthy of belief by a rational person because it is self-contradictory?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 20, 2014
Yes, your understanding of the classical definition is how I understand it too. But it still defies rational understanding, even if it is not irrational. (What defies understanding is how the three can be one and yet three; I do understand: three in person, one in essence. But figuring out how that can be, without sacrificing either the unity or the plurality is, in my judgment, beyond rational sense. I’m not saying it’s wrong — the properties of light are beyond rational sense as well)
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 23, 2014
“Albert Einstein once told a friend that quantum mechanics doesn’t hold water in his scientific world view because “physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance.” That spooky action at a distance is ENTANGLEMENT, a quantum phenomenon in which two particles, separated by ANY amount of distance, can instantaneously affect one another as if part of a unified system.
Now, scientists have successfully hijacked that quantum weirdness — doing so reliably for the first time — to produce what many sci-fi fans have long dreamt up: teleportation…”
Nick Statt
Sorry for posting too much. You are at fault. You are too interesting! (Will be finished in just a few more days. Hang in there.)
Log in to Reply
Lostallfaith August 24, 2014
Thank you very much for posting your lecture. Your words are so important to me as I have lost my 22 year old son to a very religious, Christian Fundamentalist Cult in Texas last Dec. I have read all your books and others, studied the historical Jesus and how the Bible became Holy and now am an agnostic. My husband, went the other path, becoming religious (we did not even attend church prior), seeking solace and understanding from the very book (Bible) that destroyed our son. We are now completely at odds. And so when I heard you say your wife was Christian, I had a brief moment of hope that my spouse and I could somehow come together in our sorrow under no religious doctrine. Religion has destroyed my family and yet I am trying to “compromise” and attend church, go through the motions yet I feel like an imposter. Our son no longer is allowed contact with us as we are “apostate” and this was even before I lost my faith…..how do you have a relationship with your spouse when you don’t believe the same things anymore….thank you for all your help in this time of despair.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 25, 2014
My wife and I have never believed the same things! But for neither of us is it a matter of eternal moment. It’s simply a disagreement in things we both find important — and so we work for mutual respect.
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 25, 2014
“Our son no longer is allowed contact with us as we are “apostate”…”lost”
He’s an adult. If he wishes to speak to you, he can. If he’s prevented from doing so, he’s been kidnapped. He isn’t permitted to speak to his believing father, either, because he too is apostate?
What denomination is this? Would you like someone to try to talk to him or to those in charge?
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 25, 2014
“Did Jesus indicate he needed a new religion? It seems he indicated it to Paul and he indicated it to James who allowed Gentiles some leeway with respect to religious customs of Judaism.” steefen
Jesus existed? If so, he was history when paul came along, wasn’t he?
“For Jesus to have existed with God, one should ask where was Jesus when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.”steefen
“Why?” Where was jesus and what difference does it make?
Log in to Reply
Steefen August 27, 2014
prestonp: Jesus existed?
Steefen: They certainly did. Jesus is a number of historical persons crafted with much care into a biblical Jesus–even the Homeric Epics were used to craft the Biblical Jesus.
Bart Ehrman says there are multiple attestations of Jesus.
One of the leading Jesuses of the historical Jesus group is King Izates who:
1) was an “only begotten son”
2) fed 5,000 a number of times during the famine of approximately 47 B.C.E.
3) had a royal blood line who wore crows of thorns
4) had a father who appears in the teachings of Jesus, Matthew 6: 19-20 (See: The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy: Insights on the Exodus, King David, the 23rd Psalm, Jesus and Paul, 1st Edition, by Steefen, ps 126-128.)
So, you are in error when you write: “He was history when Paul came along, wasn’t he?”
Log in to Reply
Steefen August 27, 2014
prestonp, I forgot to put an important reason for putting King Izates at the top of the historical Jesuses list; so point 3 becomes 3a and the reason I’m adding to make the list complete is 3b below. I’m also adding an additional reason, 3c.
1) was an “only begotten son”
2) fed 5,000 a number of times during the famine of approximately 47 B.C.E.
3a) had a royal blood line who wore crowns of thorns
3b) some of the kings wearing crowns of thorns had the name Manu.
Jesus is Em-manu-el which seems to mean With the Manu line of kings–who converted to Judaism with Queen Helena and following the example of Queen Helena and King Izates–is God. It does not mean With Us is God.
3c) in my book, I make an issue about Jesus grilling the pharisees: Is it not written in YOUR law… as opposed to, Is it not written in OUR law. For me, Jesus is phrasing as Queen Helena or King Izates would question a Jewish authority. We are not Jews, we are proselytes. For me, it is also Roman writers of a pro-Roman composite Jesus questioning Judaism. More important and very important: Queen Helena’s palace would seem to obligate her and sons to have some sort of understanding with Rome when it came to paying taxes. So, when Jesus is questioned by enemies trying to entrap him to tell Jews not to pay taxes to Caesar, the Queen Helena royal family would have a politically correct response. Queen Helena (see http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/helene-queen-of-adiabene) had to co-exist under Roman authority of the region. Did her family get a tax break for the famine relief that year? It probably could have been negotiated or could have been an item to hold against the Romans; for, we know her family tree fought against the Romans during the Jewish Revolt.
Mark 8: 18 “Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? …”
4) had a father who appears in the teachings of Jesus, Matthew 6: 19-20 (See: The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy: Insights on the Exodus, King David, the 23rd Psalm, Jesus and Paul, 1st Edition, by Steefen, ps 126-128.)
Matthew 6: 19-21 Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20“But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; 21for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 29, 2014
Most everyone agrees that there are huge differences between religion and spirituality. Anyone can claim to be speaking for god or jesus and many have. They do so in vain. They use his name to do all kinds of good and evil things and they are con-artists. Focusing on them or their institutions/churches is a choice and many choose it. Some are sure that that god and their words and actions are one. Some enjoy that perspective because it offers justification not to concentrate on the divine.
This guy jesus is quoted as saying that god is spirit. He supposedly added, if anybody wants to hang out with this spirit, it is accomplished through spirit. The guy who was rescued at the last split second? wasn’t baptized, did no good works, didn’t repent of anything, never tithed, never quit drinking or lusting after babes. He did express a thought: He don’t deserve this. We do. He don’t.
Instead of being “biblically correct”, jesus made a bizarre statement. Pal, this very day you and I will hang out in heaven together. (Wasn’t he supposed to wait a few days?) Some kind of connection sparked between them, spirit to spirit.
Log in to Reply
Steefen August 31, 2014
prestonp: He did express a thought: “He don’t deserve this. We do. He don’t.” Instead of being “biblically correct”, Jesus made a bizarre statement. Pal, this very day you and I will hang out in heaven together. (Wasn’t he supposed to wait a few days?) Some kind of connection sparked between them, spirit to spirit.
Steefen: You’re missing important ingredients. It wasn’t just that he thought Jesus did not deserve to be crucified but also: 1) he had a fear of God when he asks the other crucified man, “Don’t you even fear God?” 2) he told Jesus he had faith in Jesus’s kingdom. Jesus appreciated that. That was the connection sparked, spirit to spirit.
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 1, 2014
And, he wasn’t a fundamentalist, or a literalist, or an expert on new testament inerrancy or dispensationalism. He wasn’t a Baptist, or rich or poor, literate, free or a slave, wasn’t cleansed from his sinful nature, didn’t speak in tongues, couldn’t define the trinity, Christ didn’t take him down miraculously, but he experienced the exact same “born from above” relationship as Dr. Bart from what I can tell.
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 2, 2014
So, what exactly did he “do” to become qualified to go to heaven? That very day, Christ promised, the two of them would be together in heaven. Where in the new testament does it say he gets to go to heaven? It wasn’t written at that point.
Log in to Reply
Steefen August 30, 2014
The second most important historical Jesus, after King Izates, is Emperor Vespasian.
Christ Jesus can be understood as terms as opposed to a singular person. Christ would mean Messiah. Jesus would mean Savior or God Saves. Three historians claim Emperor Vespasian was Christ Jesus because he was the leader promised in the Star Prophecy. Those historians were Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus.
The third most important historical Jesus after Emperor Vespasian is the Woe-Saying Jesus.
Now, the problem I have with Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman and How Jesus became God by Bart Ehrman is that we have three ancient historians who claim Paul’s Christ Jesus = Messiah Savior of the Star Prophecy to be Vespasian. With Rome, the Victors, writing history and writing a non-militant, pro-Roman Jesus and a religion about Jesus through Paul, — Did Jesus Exist does not have an index but — these books need to confirm, not the three tenors but the three historians. Vespasian becomes deified within 20 years of Jesus becoming God.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 31, 2014
We don’t have any ancient historians who claim that Christ was Vespasian.
Log in to Reply
Steefen September 1, 2014
The “Star Prophecy” (or Star and Scepter prophecy) is a Messianic reading applied by radical Jews and early Christians to Numbers 24:17. The Star Prophecy was applied to the coming Messiah himself in contemporary radical Jewish documents, such as the apocalyptic War Scroll found at Qumran.
Now for the Ancient Historians who claimed Christ was Vespasian, Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus:
[Vespasian] had not arrived at the government without Divine Providence, but a righteous kind of fate had brought the empire under his power. Josephus War of the Jews 4, 10, 622
But what more than all else incited them to the war was an ambiguous oracle also found in their sacred writings, that ‘At about that time, one from their country would become ruler of the habitable world.’ This they took to mean one of their own people and many of the wise men were misled in their interpretaion. This oracle, however, in reality, signified the government of Vespasian, who was proclaimed emperor while in Judea. – Josephus Wars VI, 312-313.
There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief that it was fated for men coming from Judea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome–as afterwards appeared from the event–the people of Judea took to themselves. – Suetonius, Life of Vespasian, 4-5
The majority [of the Jews] were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judea would go forth men destined to rule the world. This mysterious prophecy really referred to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, true to the selfish ambitions of mankind, thought that this exalted destiny was reserved for them and not even their calamities opened their eyes to the truth. – Tacitus, Histories, 5.13
Log in to Reply
Steefen September 1, 2014
Vespasian saved us from militant, zealous, messianic rebel Jews just as today we need to be saved from militant, zealous, rebels of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria committing genocide against Christians, beheading adults and children. (NPR transcript: http://wmra.org/post/spectacle-beheading-grisly-act-long-history )
For people to miss the assignment of the Star Prophecy by three historians away from Jesus to Vespasian and Titus is to miss the historically accurate picture of Christianity in Antiquity. Jesus is assigned the title of Messiah as Roman propaganda to appease messiah loving zealots but corrupting the love for a militant messiah for a pacifist messiah. Josephus saw Vespasian and Titus as doing the work of the Messiah of God.
Log in to Reply
Steefen September 4, 2014
Wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? (Matthew Chapter 2) Rome was the kingdom over the Jews. Who did King Herod the Great listen to? He listened to the emperor of Rome. After Herod the Great, who appointed his sons in authority in the region? Rome. Afterwards, who appointed Pontius Pilate? Who appointed the high priests? The kingdom that was at hand, politically, was Rome.
Dr. Ehrman, the crown of Christ was taken away from any Jewish man or proselyte and given to Roman men, father and son, Vespasian and Titus.
Regarding God empowering General and Emperor Vespasian (the father) and General and Emperor Titus (the son)–Rome–Matthew 21: 42-44: “Did you never read in the scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; by the Lord has this been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes’? Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people (the Romans) that will produce its fruit. The one who falls on this stone will be dashed to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls.” The stone will crush anyone on whom it falls is a reference to a Roman weapon of victory over Jewish rebels used during the Roman Jewish War. The Roman military threw stones that crushed anyone on whom it fell. God has done this. By Roman victory over the Jews, the Kingdom of God/Righteousness/Heaven and its king/emperor was taken away from the Jews and given to Rome. Even the early Christianity of the Roman Church did better than the early Christianity of Jerusalem.
Historians, Bible, History, Jesus, and Star Prophecy claim Vespasian as Christ, later deified by Rome’s Senate, the Senate of the Kingdom of God. Then the Senate of the Kingdom of God deified the son, Titus as Father and Son became God in the new covenant, Christianity. The network of the emperor cults in Asia Minor was a network used by Paul. Paul working through the network of Palestine isn’t how history unfolded.
Log in to Reply
Steefen September 9, 2014
At Church Sunday, we learned that the Roman Empire WAS seen as God’s Kingdom after Christianity was the religion of the Empire. The minister said people were only allowed to read the book of Revelation metaphorically and not literally, as Rome, at the time of its writing was the evil empire.
But what is this about Rome being God’s Kingdom for the Son of Man within jesus’s present generation (at or within 40 years from Jesus crucifixion, or at or within 40 years of Jesus’s last year of preaching ministry).
Well, when Josephus fell for Rome as a political alternative to Jerusalem, he fell hard. Seriously, he had reason to do so. Last night, I was doing some reading in Josephus and it stated that when the rebels were fighting among themselves (John, Simon, and Eleazar), John and Simon burned the stores of corn, which led to the starvation of Jews during the Jewish Revolt. It also led to cannibalism, for at least one adult who ate her male child. Josephus lamented the state of Jerusalem under these three rebels/bandits/what have you, that he felt a need for a Messiah/Savior/Kingdom. He saw that in Vespasian, Titus, and the Roman Empire.
I felt there was a need to add more to the concept of how the ancient historian Josephus saw the Star of Bethlehem/Star Prophecy fulfilled in Vespasian.
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 30, 2014
As intelligent and knowledgeable as most of Dr. Bart’s posters are, they shouldn’t need to be reminded of the vast gulf between those who use his name and those who try to live in his name.
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 31, 2014
One of the key discoveries that led to Flew’s recognition
of the existence of intelligence was what modern
science has learned about DNA: “Biologists’ investigation
of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable
complexity of the arrangements needed to produce life,
that intelligence must have been involved” (p. 123).
Three main arguments compelled Flew to admit the
need for an Intelligent Source: (1) the presence of
detailed laws of nature, (2) the finely tuned universe
that was perfectly receptive to life, and (3) the question
of how and why life emerged from nothing (p. 89).
There Is a God
by
Antony Flew
with Roy Abraham Varghese
HarperOne Reading and Discussion Guide for There Is a God
Log in to Reply
SBrudney091941 August 31, 2014
Dr. Ehrman, overall, I am so appreciative of what you share in this lecture and of your your work generally. But there are some mistakes here, I think. First, I think you were quoting Mark: “Thou art my beloved Son….” This has nothing to do with miraculous birth virgin or otherwise or being the literal, much less the begotten, son of God as I think you were suggesting (at 68, however, my memory is slipping). And this RVS translation, in my view, cheats by capitalizing “son.” There is no divinity implied. But the other mistake that keeps getting perpetuated all around us every day is that of quoting John 10:30, “I and the Father are one,” as evidence that John taught Jesus was God. On the face of it, sure. But later in 17:11 Jesus prays to his Father that “they [the people or believers before him] may be one, even as we [you and I, Father] are one.” Jesus is not praying to his Father here that the people may become identical with one another. The oneness in 10:30, therefore, means something other than identity.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 31, 2014
No, I don’t think that Mark understands Jesus to have been born of a virgin or to have pre-existed his birth (did I suggest this?). On John 10:30, I’m not so sure. If he wasn’t making a divine claim, why did his Jewish opponents take up stones to stone him?
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 9, 2014
But Dr., you don’t believe any of the words in john are those of jesus.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 9, 2014
There may be some authentic words of Jesus in John, just as there are in other Gospels. The question is always *which* words are authentic.
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 10, 2014
Dr., there is rejoicing sweeping across the land of my heart tonight! Do you realize what just happened?
An earthquake shook the Northern Hemisphere! Dr. Bart acknowledged we may have the actual words spoken by Christ in the gospels! Just teasing ya.
Why would Christ celebrate a last supper if he was unaware of his fate?
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 10, 2014
Yes, I’ve written an entire book indicating what in the Gospels actually goes back to Jesus, so it’s not a surprise that I think some things do!
I never said Christ celebrated the last supper. I said he *had* a last supper. I.e., there was a final meal he had, probably with his disciples, probably a Passover meal. What he said and did then is up to debate.
prestonp September 11, 2014
How did he know it would be his last supper?
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 11, 2014
I’m not sure he did.
prestonp September 1, 2014
Read on. 31 “Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 1, 2014
Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, 30 but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life. 31 “But many who are first will be last, and the last, first.”
Who is this guy? Who does he think he is? And, how does he know what will happen to people eternally if they put him and his mission above all? Why does he think he is so important that he can offer those who follow him abundance in this life and in eternity? And where the heck is he going, anyway, that people should follow him?
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 10, 2014
Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, 30 but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life. 31 “But many who are first will be last, and the last, first.”
Dr., who else could have said the above? Who in his right mind would make up such promises for Christ to make? I just can’t imagine how it could happen. Why would anyone dream up stuff like that? What could its “creator” derive from making such claims? It doesn’t make any sense to me. I think they are his words.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 10, 2014
Lots of people could have said or written that. Why couldn’t they? What would have stopped them? Do you think the words of Jesus in, say, the Gospel of Thomas must necessarily go back to him because they are so astounding and unlike what people normally say?
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 11, 2014
Dr., would you quote someone else who spoke words like those, please?
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 11, 2014
I’d suggest youread the non-canonical Gospels.
prestonp September 12, 2014
“After that again he went through the village, and a child ran and dashed against his shoulder. And Jesus was provoked and said unto him: Thou shalt not finish thy course (lit. go all thy way). And immediately he fell down and died. But certain when they saw what was done said: Whence was this young child born, for that every word of his is an accomplished work And the parents of him that was dead came unto Joseph, and blamed him, saying: Thou that hast such a child canst not dwell with us in the village: or do thou teach him to bless and not to curse: for he slayeth our children.
V. 1 And Joseph called the young child apart and admonished him, saying: Wherefore doest thou such things, that these suffer and hate us and persecute us But Jesus said: I know that these thy words are not thine: nevertheless for thy sake I will hold my peace: but they shall bear their punishment. And straightway they that accused him were smitten with blindness. 2 And they that saw it were sore afraid and perplexed…”
You are right. Anyone could have written this. It in no way compares with Christ’s words. No one has spoken like he did, imo. Do you believe, whoever wrote what is in Thomas, was on the same level with the canonical gospels?
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 12, 2014
Sorry — I was referring to the sayings in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, not the stories of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.
prestonp September 12, 2014
Do you have others you could reference whom you find to be similar to Christ’s phraseology?
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 12, 2014
I’d suggest you look at the book my colleague Zlatko Plese and I produced, The Other Gospels.
prestonp September 20, 2014
“Lots of people could have said or written that. Why couldn’t they? What would have stopped them? Do you think the words of Jesus in, say, the Gospel of Thomas must necessarily go back to him because they are so astounding and unlike what people normally say?” Dr. Bart
1. No one has.
2. Good question. They are not god.
3. No. The words in Thomas are nothing like christ’s words.
prestonp September 12, 2014
“Lots of people could have said or written that. Why couldn’t they? What would have stopped them? Do you think the words of Jesus in, say, the Gospel of Thomas must necessarily go back to him because they are so astounding and unlike what people normally say?”
Wesley Center Online
Gospel Of Thomas Greek Text A
From “The Apocryphal New Testament” M.R. James-Translation and Notes Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924
Introduction
The older testimonies about this book have been given already. I now present the three principal forms of it, as given by Tischendorf: two Greek texts, A and B, and one Latin.
The few Greek manuscripts are all late. The earliest authorities are a much abbreviated Syriac version of which the manuscript is of the sixth century, and a Latin palimpsest at Vienna of the fifth or sixth century, which has never been deciphered in full.
The Latin version translated here is found in more manuscripts than the Greek; none of them, I think, is earlier than the thirteenth century.
The stories of Thomas the Israelite, the Philosopher, concerning the works of the Childhood of the Lord.
I. I, Thomas the Israelite, tell unto you, even all the brethren that are of the Gentiles, to make known unto you the works of the childhood of our Lord Jesus Christ and his mighty deeds, even all that he did when he was born in our land: whereof the beginning is thus:
etc., etc
Adam Clarke unequivocally affirmed the full trustworthiness
or inerrancy of Scripture. In his article on “The
Principles of the Christian Religion,” he stated, “The
Bible . . . is a revelation from God himself, and declares
his will relative to the salvation of men….men
may err, but the Scriptures cannot; for it is the Word
of God himself, who can neither mistake, deceive,
nor be deceived” [Works, 12:132]. He frequently and
approvingly quoted the saying concerning Scriptures
that they have “God for their Author, salvation for
their end, and truth, without mixture of error, for their
matter” [Works,11:406]. In his Commentary he categorically
stated that “The apostles were assisted and
preserved from error by the Spirit of God; and therefore
were enabled to deliver to us an unerring rule of
faith.” The Holy Spirit did not permit them “to err in
the delivery of what was thus indited in his name or
which they had written as apostles of God the Father,
and our Lord Jesus Christ” [Commentary, 5:9, 11].
Clarke took inerrancy of Scripture as meaning that it
is without error in all it affirms as fact, and not
inerrant in what it does not affirm. For instance, the
chronological sequence of recorded events may not
be necessarily reflected in historical accounts, such
as in the Gospels, unless the sequence is specifically
affirmed. Furthermore, in the recording of conversations
it is not necessary to have “the very words” but
the “true intent and meaning” of the exact words.
However, he believed that John 14:20 does promise
exactness in the recording of Jesus’ exact words
[Commentary, 5:10].
Clarke stoutly defended the canonicity and textual
purity of the Scriptures. The canon as we have it is
complete and authentic. The Scriptures have been
transmitted to us “without addition, defalcation, or
willful corruption of any kind.” He refers to 2 Timothy
3:16-17 in support of this. In Clarke’s opinion,
the textual variants are not significant enough to lead
to any doctrinal error or obscurity or confusion in
moral practice. “All is safe and sound—all pure and
holy, it is . . . the unadulterated gospel of Jesus
Christ.” With regard to particular textual variants,
such as 1 John 5:7, he honestly admits that he did not
believe that was yet fully settled. He did believe
however, that the Joshua 21:35-36 problem is solved
by 1 Chronicles 6:78-79 [Works, 6:388, 415].
Adam Clarke on the Use of Scripture
Clarke believed in the eternal applicability of God’s
Word. In his practical suggestions on how to read the
Bible he advised Christians to read it as the very
word of God Himself because God “considers it as
much his word now as he did when he first spoke it”
[Works, 11:416].
THE ARMINIAN
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 13, 2014
“…many biblical scholars who are deeply committed Christians would agree with Bart Ehrman that Jesus makes no explicit claims to be God in the Synoptics, and would also agree that the words of Jesus in the Gospel of John are not to be taken as actual quotes of Jesus but as theological meditations or discourse…”
If every bible scholar believed that, it still would have no bearing on his divinity. 2,000 years after he was here, he remains the central figure in human history.
“No, I completely disagree. Intelligent and thoughtful Christians have substantial reason for thinking Jesus is GoDr. Bart
d.” From a brilliant agnostic with strong atheistic tendencies. When people have a born again experience , as I am sure you know, there is a lot of emotion and a lot of hype at that moment
“They are theologically sophisticated people who realize that Jesus could be God even if he never said so…”
When did he fail to make his divinity known?
No one mistook him for bozo. He wasn’t accused of being a circus clown. He wasn’t exactly concealing his miracles or denying his equality with god. He wasn’t murdered for being a nut job, was he? He wasn’t despised for being a hypocritical get-rich quit, smooth talking, slick, greedy preacher boy, right?
“I AM” signaled nothing significant in those who heard him he say that?
Even the demoniac recognized him immediately and was scared to death.
ولدت من جديد
tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
hwl said, “Religious people do what they think makes sense to them. I think in some Christian circles, the idea that one needs a child-like faith encourages an infantile religious worldview…”
shakespeare66 August 26, 2014
said, “It appears to be the one you are holding.”
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
by Rich Deem https://plus.google.com/105440427757499026037/posts?hl=en
atheists are up in arms thinking that Professor Antony Flew has lost his mind. Flew, age 81, has been a legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, stating that “onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist.”1 However, in 2004, Prof. Flew did the unheard of action of renouncing his atheism because “the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.”2 In a recent interview, Flew stated, “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution:
“It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.”3
In Flew’s own words, he simply “had to go where the evidence leads.”4 According to Flew, “…it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before.”2 Flew also indicated that he liked arguments that proceeded from big bang cosmology.
“The assertion that Jesus is God is arguably the single most important development in Western civilization.”
I don’t think Jesus ever claimed to be God. (There is nothing, nothing, that is more obvious, more clear, more certain, anywhere, about anything, than that Christ claimed to be divine. It is unmistakable. It is not possible for a healthy, rational, adult human being- one who is not impaired intellectually-to miss that reality as portrayed in the n.t. )
You really should read my book How Jesus Became God.
I am reading your extensive work and so far, I have found nothing that challenges his reality in a substantive fashion.
But there have been lots and lots of people who *have* claimed to be God, as you surely know.
Not one is anything like this guy. Not close, Dr. Bart.
Some things are so true and real and alive and touching and life-giving and penetrating and sweet and powerful and special, that an explanation or words of any kind, and all arguments lay silent. The most beautiful piece of music, the most glorious sunset, the prettiest poem, the deepest feeling of love, the rapture of being born from above, cannot be defined, added to, subtracted from or enhanced. They are life itself.
“I don’t think psychology is a matter of being tricked into ruses. The psychology of religion is a profound and complicated field. Again, I’d suggest you do some reading to help inform your opinions.” Dr. Bart
What you experienced during your religious conversion, whatever else it was, it was not based on any facts and evidence that proved jesus was in fact god, because he wasn’t, in your opinion. “Jesus” never became real to you because he’s not real, period; he was not god and is not god. Whatever you experienced, by your definition, was not jesus.
Log in to Reply
prestonp October 28, 2014
I like what you have said about the different types of god, Bart . I have come to learn that religion is mostly a hoax- maybe a well meaning hoax but non-the-less a hoax.
Far from being the only ones to hold the “traditional” view of God, the view held by fundamentalists is a recent development and theologically unsophisticated compared to many older views of God.
The more we debate the existence of God, the more people will change their definition of God in order to fit a round peg into a square hole
Can the historical and current racism against the Jewish people be linked to Christianity in general and specifically the Gospel of John? If so, I am in fact horrified.
Not just to John, but in my view there was no such thing as anti-Judaism per se until Christainity arose.
Reading your affirmation literally gave me chills right now … how horrific. Then this is one of the worst examples of Religious imperialism.
I am often stunned by how flippant fundamentalists are about the work of a scholar ( as my fundamentalist preacher “friend” casts you off like you are nobody).
What Christians lack (too often) is a willingness to investigate the knowledge that is out there about a variety of things. How stunning is it that 64% of Christians in this country deny evolution? I think that is beyond stunning. It is mind boggling. Try reading Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True. Oh, I’m sorry. People like you don’t read stuff like that because you can find all the answers in the Bible so you don’t need to read anything else. And even if you DID read it, you would still deny it it true and say it is a hoax or a conspiracy or some such nonsense. It is OKAY for you to live in your fantasy world. We don’t begrudge you living there, but please son’t step on my understanding of the world, of Jesus Christ, of evolution, of being gay, of anything that your “perfect” little moral Bible tells you is right about proper decorum for the world. Christians should be stunned at how flippant we can be about the life of Christ. I have read the 15 or so books that Dr. Ehrman has written on the subject because I wanted to know what scholars are saying about this subject. No one wants to take away your belief or your faith. Just leave those who don’t care for it alone. Instead of quoting me, ask a pertinent question—you might learn something for once in your life.
Your words are so important to me as I have lost my 22 year old son to a very religious, Christian Fundamentalist Cult … Religion has destroyed my family and yet I am trying to “compromise” and attend church, go through the motions yet I feel like an imposter. Our son no longer is allowed contact with us as we are “apostate” and this was even before I lost my faith…..how do you have a relationship with your spouse when you don’t believe the same things anymore….thank you for all your help in this time of despair.
(No one can prevent a 22 year old son from contacting his parents, legally. No one responded when asked what denomination this is or if she’d like help. I know of no CFC in the world that forbids a 22 year old man from contacting whomever he wants.)
Racism. Anti-Christian accusations are inappropriate. Anti-Christian rhetoric is the “New Racism.” It flows freely, gleefully, and it is wrong.
Log in to Reply
Subscribe to Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search by Keyword or User Name
Bart’s Recent Posts
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015
More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015
My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015
BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015
On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015
“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015
Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015
What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015
Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015
Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015
My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015
Archives
Select Month April 2015 (19) March 2015 (27) February 2015 (21) January 2015 (22) December 2014 (26) November 2014 (23) October 2014 (23) September 2014 (26) August 2014 (26) July 2014 (25) June 2014 (25) May 2014 (42) April 2014 (42) March 2014 (39) February 2014 (37) January 2014 (45) December 2013 (45) November 2013 (40) October 2013 (45) September 2013 (42) August 2013 (44) July 2013 (48) June 2013 (45) May 2013 (40) April 2013 (43) March 2013 (44) February 2013 (43) January 2013 (52) December 2012 (46) November 2012 (44) October 2012 (55) September 2012 (51) August 2012 (46) July 2012 (54) June 2012 (51) May 2012 (38) April 2012 (18)
Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
Latest Additions
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...
More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...
One Time Donation to Foundation
Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!
This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.
Monthy Reoccuring Donations
When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112
Enter Your Donation Amount
Login
Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Register | Lost your Password?
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design
Return to Top
http://ehrmanblog.org/freedom-from-religion-foundation-lecture/
Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users
RSS
YouTube
Google+
Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog
Membership
why & how to join
Philanthropy
assist the needy
Latest Posts
member & public
Member Forum
discussions
Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers
Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogFreedom From Religion Foundation Lecture
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...
Freedom From Religion Foundation Lecture
On May 3 of this year I gave a lecture at a meeting of the Freedom from Religion Foundation in Raleigh NC. The lecture is about what it is like to be an agnostic who writes about religion. That’s an irony that I am constantly aware of and most of the lecture is about my experience as a non-religious person who is an expert in something he doesn’t believe in.
I also used the lecture to stress that being “free from religion” is not the same thing as “attacking religion.” I absolutely agree with the founding principle of the FFRF that no religion (of any kind, Christian or otherwise) should be imposed on us by the state. But I do not at *all* think that this is the same thing as being opposed to religion. I am personally not opposed to religion or people who practice it (although I *am* quite definitely opposed to fundamenalist kinds of religion — whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever). And I think organized agnostic/atheist/secular/humanist attacks on religion per se are wrong-headed and (just as important) counter-productive. In any event, I get into all that in my lecture, found here. (I hope you like the statue I was given for the Emperor Has No Clothes Award !):
Please adjust gear icon for 720p High-Definition:
image_pdfimage_print
in
Share
.
Suggested Donation for the Blog«
Clarification!»
16
AUG
2014
122
Comments
122 Comments
0 Trackbacks
Matilda
Matilda August 16, 2014
I think a lot of problems would be solved by coming up with a definition of what God is. I think a lot of religious people really don’t believe in a Biblical God except fundamentalists. The new God is “pure love” I’ve been told. Then there is the “who knows what God is” but there is certainly something more. When talking about belief in God people should be clear about what they mean.
I like what you have said about the different types of god, Bart . I have come to learn that religion is mostly a hoax- maybe a well meaning hoax but non-the-less a hoax.
Log in to Reply
Bethany
Bethany August 17, 2014
I recently read Karen Armstrong’s “A History of God” which argued, among other things:
(1) There isn’t any one “Biblical God”. (I also recently read several interesting books discussing the development of Jewish monotheism and pointing out many places in the Jewish Bible where you can see the remnants of the older polytheistic traditions that monotheism arose from.
(2) Far from being the only ones to hold the “traditional” view of God, the view held by fundamentalists is a recent development and theologically unsophisticated compared to many older views of God.
I found it an interesting book.
Personally, I’d argue that if you’ve come up with a definition of God, then you know right there your definition is incomplete.
Log in to Reply
VandaBlair August 19, 2014
I won’t say that I ‘know’ this as the reason, but a lot of religious people have redefined their definition of God as a way of shifting the goal posts. It’s a way to avoid certain arguments that might at least question the validity of their beliefs. That’s why there are so many vague definitions floating around.
The more we debate the existence of God, the more people will change their definition of God in order to fit a round peg into a square hole. Suffering being round, God being square for example. The last thing believers I talk to will do is give up their belief.
(It follows from something I have seen in most former believers I have met. They go through something similar to the Five Stages of Grief and Loss: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. All they want at the bargaining stage is to reach a workable compromise and not have to go further into the process of losing their faith.)
So I don’t see a clear and precise definition of God coming any time soon from those that believe.
Log in to Reply
Hana1080 August 16, 2014
I apologize that at times my comments digress BUT they do pop up at odd times too while reflecting on what I’ve been reading .. Can the historical and current racism against the Jewish people be linked to Christianity in general and specifically the Gospel of John?
Log in to Reply
Hana1080 August 16, 2014
If so, I am in fact horrified.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 17, 2014
Not just to John, but in my view there was no such thing as anti-Judaism per se until Christainity arose.
Log in to Reply
Rosekeister
Rosekeister August 17, 2014
Do you think the anti-Judaism arose because of the gospels or did the gospels reflect a growing anti-Judaism in the gentile churches? And for that matter, did this anti-Judaism arise because the NT documents were written in the run-up and during the Jewish wars against Rome or because, despite Jewish followers of Jesus, most of the Jews did not accept the Christian claims of Jesus as the Messiah?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 19, 2014
Yes, I think anti-Judaism affected the Gospels andt he Gospels affected anti-Judaism, and that it all is tied directly to Jews not accepting messianic claims.
Log in to Reply
ksutherland August 28, 2014
messianic claims…. about Jesus. From what I understand Jews had messianic ideas but they did not align with the claims that Jesus was the messiah?
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 29, 2014
I talk about this in several of my books — you might see the discussion, for example, in Jesus Interrupted.
Hana1080 August 18, 2014
Reading your affirmation literally gave me chills right now … how horrific. Then this is one of the worst examples of Religious imperialism.
Log in to Reply
willow August 19, 2014
Odd, isn’t it? Considering the fact that Jesus was not ever a Christian, but always a Jew.
Log in to Reply
willow August 19, 2014
P.S., As for the statue, well, it is so rather amusingly interesting. And shiny.
Log in to Reply
ksutherland August 28, 2014
Interesting thought…. with Jesus being Jewish…. he would be familiar with the particular prophetic scriptural references and therefore would never claim to be the messiah (?)
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 29, 2014
I think Jesus did understand himself to be the messiah. You might look at my discussion in How Jesus Became God.
prestonp September 10, 2014
What do we call the history of the persecution of the jews before christianity arrived? Did Christ promote anti-Judaism?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 10, 2014
What persecutions of the Jews before Christianity are you thinking of? There were sometimes political issues in Palestine (and in Alexandria). But I don’t know of any persecutions of Jews for being Jewish (other than a general sense that barbarians — such as Jews and Ethiopians and Gallic tribes and so on — had very peculiar customs that could easily be mocked. I certainly don’t think Jesus wsa anti-Jewish. Just the contrary. But his later followers certainly *became* anti-Jewish.
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 12, 2014
This didn’t make it and I don’t know why. Jews have been under attack since god chose Abe and his descendants as his very own people.
Can you be specific regarding his followers who were anti-Semitic? How does a follower hate someone and be a follower?
14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death. 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 12, 2014
I am supposed to be writing a book soon (though it won’t be soon) on the rise of Christian anti-semitism (it didn’t exist before Christianity). But you might try Rosemary Ruether’s classic, Faith and Fratricide.
pdahl August 16, 2014
Toward the end of your most candid FFRF lecture you mentioned some very smart people close to you who I presume are well aware of all the historical points you made in *How Jesus Became God* and yet still consider that Jesus indeed *was/is* God.
I have three brief questions about this. 1. Do they understand your historical points about Jesus in HJBG but simply disagree with them or that these points bear upon Jesus’s divine status? 2. Or is that that they agree with your arguments but nonetheless still think Jesus was/is God, albeit for other reasons than those you address in the book? 3. Ultimately, then, why do these smart people close to you think that Jesus was/is God?
Having read HJBG twice by now — and thanks so much for writing it, by the way — I was impressed by the sheer amount of logic, empiricism, and reason that underpins virtually all of your carefully crafted arguments. Others will no doubt rebut you based on their preference for advocating from tradition, authority, and/or dogma. And maybe therein lies at least a partial psychological answer to my own questions — namely, that for some people logic, empiricism, and reason simply trump tradition, authority, and dogma, whereas for others it’s just the other way around. Your thoughts?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 17, 2014
They are theologically sophisticated people who realize that Jesus could be God even if he never said so and that this view was not recognized until later, long after his death. They think this not for historical reasons but for theological reasons, and argue that history is not hte only (or even the best) gateway to truth. On that I agree with them.
Log in to Reply
Rosekeister
Rosekeister August 17, 2014
A good post or even series of posts would be on how extremely intelligent, highly educated, theologically sophisticated people define God and in what way Jesus could be this God.
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 10, 2014
“Others will no doubt rebut you based on their preference for advocating from tradition, authority, and/or dogma.”
Others use reason, science, history, common sense and written and natural revelation that has withstood every argument for thousands of years to come to grips with his divinity. Additionally, there isn’t one speck of proof that jesus wasn’t exactly who he said he was. Quite the contrary, all known evidence makes an air-tight case for his divinity.
To attempt to reduce the reasons why people believe in him to “dogma, authority and tradition” is a clever? way to try to hide the contempt of the christhaters. It isn’t subtle but it is a popular way to convey the bias many anti-christians use to express and to justify their hatred.
These “haters” will not say, “Christians are stupid, subservient idiots to believe that nonsense” on Dr. Bart’s blog.
This won’t make it as a post for the reasons I just listed.
Log in to Reply
willow August 19, 2014
Thanks for asking the questions I hesitated to ask, pdahl!
Log in to Reply
DonakdDHeacock August 16, 2014
What is your opinion of Robert Eisenman’s work on James.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 17, 2014
Eisenman is very smart and he knows a lot of things. And I think he is dead wrong about James.
Log in to Reply
asjsdpjk August 19, 2014
It would be amazingly intrresting if you could elaborate on that some time!
Log in to Reply
DonakdDHeacock August 24, 2014
Thank you Bart I have written on one other occasion (About Barbara Thiering) Please give us a short sketch of Eisenman’s view of James and yours.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 25, 2014
OK, interesting idea. I’ll think about it!
Log in to Reply
ksutherland August 28, 2014
This would be very interesting! *toothy grin!*
Rosekeister
Rosekeister August 16, 2014
That was a stirring challange to the humanist associations near the end of your talk. It prompts me to ask if you think that the traditional view of religion is too small? That a religious worldview does not have to involve Jesus or the Buddha (or anyone else) as a founding figure, an institutional church, a set of required beliefs, faith in creeds or a belief in a personal (or impersonal) god. That a religious worldview could be more along the lines of taking personal responsibility for your choices and the way you live without the need for the reward of heaven or the pushment of hell. Having a blog to raise money for charity seems a religious choice in which views on faith and theism seem irrelevant.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 17, 2014
Yes, defining religion is unbelievably difficult, as it turns out. Some undergraduate courses in colleges and universities spend an entire semester problematizing the term!
Log in to Reply
Hana1080 August 16, 2014
I’d like to clarify a point. Is then the mystical traditions (and for discussion I’ll isolate Vision although mysticism encompasses a broader range of sensory phenomena) including not only Christianity but Hinduism and Buddhism considered to be in fact only hallucinations?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 17, 2014
No, there is a lot more to mysticism than that!
Log in to Reply
Hana1080 August 18, 2014
Yes I think so too but as I haven’t read this book yet as I am engrossed in another one of yours at the moment, will wait to read and better understand why you think Christ’s appearance was hallucinations and not Vision?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 19, 2014
Hallucinations are one kind of vision. (Visions can be things that are really there, or things not really there. If not really there, they are hallucinations.)
Log in to Reply
Hana1080 August 20, 2014
Thank you. I agree with your definition … Visions are there :) !! lol Succinct and to the point. Made me laugh. But you do not consider the appearance of the resurrected Christ a Vision? (I apologize if you do in your book as I haven’t read it yet .. working on another )
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 20, 2014
Yes, it was a vision. But a non-veridical one, in my opinion (i.e., a hallucination).
Hana1080 August 22, 2014
Well then I’m eager than to read this chapter and your working definitions and why the visions were non-verdical. Thank you.
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 23, 2014
In my book I leave open the question of whether or not they were veridical. But as a non-believer, of course, I do not think they were veridical. Otherwise I would be a believer!
gabilaranjeira August 16, 2014
Great talk, especially when you emphasize the role (or lack of) of religious and non-religious groups on social and humanitarian issues. This talk was a perfect combination of knowledge, tolerance and service to others. I’m a big fan of yours.
Log in to Reply
toejam August 17, 2014
Good stuff. Have you ever had much of a chance to speak to Dan Barker in private? What are your thoughts on him? You two must have a lot in common – going from evangelical fundamentalists to world famous atheists. Though it seems both of you gone about responding to your deconversions in very different ways – Dan being more of an ‘active’ atheist, for lack of a better term.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 17, 2014
We’ve talked some, but never at any great length.
Log in to Reply
RonaldTaska August 17, 2014
I look forward to hearing the lecture. Thanks for sharing it. I think the problem comes for me when religion does harm such as with religious wars, or its push against gay marriage, or its opposition to the teaching of evolution, or its attitude against women leaders and clergy. So, don’t you think religion of that sort, even if it’s not fundamentalist, needs to be opposed?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 19, 2014
No, I don’t think religion itself is to blame. People are. And people would find some other ideological reason to do evil things, if they couldn’t rely on religion to provide it….
Log in to Reply
Hana1080 August 18, 2014
In the video you said that Jesus becoming God was paramount to the spread of Christianity and I’ve been thinking about this and wondering why was IT necessary? You said that Christianity would not have spread but would have remained a Jewish sect without this Interpretation? But why? I don’t grasp the collective importance. In the church I attended in my youth, Jesus was not thought of as God … but again as I am fairly new at reading in depth maybe I should be doing more of my own homework before taking your time?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 19, 2014
Because Gentiles were not about to convert to become Jewish, and if Christianity remained a Jewish sect, that’s what Gentiles would have had to do..
Log in to Reply
Hana1080 August 20, 2014
Without my being too tedious, so the Gentiles would have had to make Jesus a God in order to remove him from the Jewish religion and establish Jesus as their own? Reflecting last night on what I’ve been reading on your site, for me what I read is both highly emotional as well as intellectual. Emotional because although I’ve read a couple of your books before, they never struck home as they are now turning in my mind Christianity upside down. Can’t wait to discuss these points with my beloved Godmother who is a Trappist abbess. :)
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 20, 2014
Not exactly. There were also Jews who understood Jesus to be God. But if Christianity stayed a sect within Judaism, then becoming Christian would involve becoming Jewish, and all that might entail (typically: circumcision; sabbath observance; kosher food laws; festivals; and so on), and most pagans simply didn’t want to go there.
Log in to Reply
Hana1080 August 18, 2014
I’m almost afraid to ask this question and possibly it should not be published respectfully .. how much of a jump then is it then that the Nazis exploited the Christian founded racism and therefore in some fundamental degree Christianity also shares responsibility? Why am I afraid to ask the question ? .. because I am extremely careful when combining the word Nazi with anything.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 19, 2014
My view is that modern forms of anti-semitism are unthinkable without an entire history of anti-Judaism from early modernity, back to the Middle Ages, and back to Late Antiquity. And anti-Judaism in Late Antiquity is unthinkable without the rise of Christianity.
Log in to Reply
Hana1080 August 20, 2014
Gasp … That’s a lot of blood on “ones” collective heads. (My belief system includes philosophical concepts of karma)
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 23, 2014
” And anti-Judaism in Late Antiquity is unthinkable without the rise of Christianity.”
Specifically, whose christianity do you refer?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 23, 2014
The world’s.
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 23, 2014
Often, the distinction between institutions that use words and phrases of a religious nature, that have nothing to do with following Christ, and those who follow him in loving devotion, is ignored. Sometimes intentionally, critics will combine them under one heading, christianity. It smears those who honor him with ugly, egregious behavior and attitudes without merit as It exalts institutions bloodied in chains of history as ambassadors of god somehow, when he had nothing to do with them.
The white man should know better by now. We have lived through our black brothers and sisters valiant struggle to shed similar kinds of stigmas.
prestonp August 25, 2014
You, too, when you were a christian, supported anti-Semitism? Did that have anything to do with your religious experience or was it promulgated by any of your brothers and sisters in the Lord? Rhetorical. No need to answer.
shakespeare66 August 18, 2014
I especially liked the fact that you asked the FFRF to make a “name” for itself by doing what Christian groups do—help other people. I have also taken the position to my friends that religion does a lot of good for people, and religion does a lot of good for people and so I do not condemn it. I just think that those who condemn it must at least offer some concomitant help for those less fortunate in the world. I love that idea, and it makes perfect sense–one has to replace the “old” group with a new “group” that has some purpose. I hope you get my drift. This was an excellent talk and a great presentation of your beliefs and your work When Jesus Became God.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 19, 2014
Thanks. I’m not sure everyone there appreciated that point all that much! :-)
Log in to Reply
toejam August 22, 2014
My concern with this is that most agnostics/atheists don’t advertise their philanthropy/charity *in the name of* agnosticism/atheism. I’ve always found it odd when people do that. There are plenty of secular charity organisations who do good for good’s sake – not in the name of “atheism” or “anti religion”. Those are the organisations that I donate towards. The FFRF’s goals are to help maintain the separation of church and state, offer support for those who have left their faith, and to help expose the superstitions of some of the world’s religions. Those are worthy goals – The FFRF should not be expected to “compete” with religious aid for the purpose of winning over converts. That to me would be just as sus as when religions do aid in order to win over converts.
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 25, 2014
“My concern with this is that most agnostics/atheists don’t advertise their philanthropy/charity *in the name of* agnosticism/atheism.”
How would you know whether agnostics/atheists participate in philanthropy/charity?
Log in to Reply
Wilusa August 18, 2014
“I am personally not opposed to religion or people who practice it (although I *am* quite definitely opposed to fundamenalist kinds of religion — whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever).”
I have a bit of a problem with this. As I see it, given my personal views, the most “liberal” form of religion is just as *wrong* as “fundamentalist” forms. So why “oppose” one and not the other? Personally, I don’t “oppose” either. Some people holding fundamentalist views seem to derive great comfort from their faith.
Of course, there can be problems with the definition of “fundamentalist.” I *do* oppose those who seek to force their religious views on others, or prevent people “born into” their faith from leaving it.
And I’m very uncomfortable with religions being allowed to have *schools* . How can people have “freedom of religion” if they’re indoctrinated almost from the cradle? I wish all our youth were in public schools, with the churches being allowed no more than “Sunday school” or its equivalent. I endured many years of Catholic schooling, and eventually became an agnostic – the thing I’m proudest of in my life. But should it be necessary for individuals to resist indoctrination? I truly don’t know.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 19, 2014
I don’t think we should oppose views because they are *wrong*. If they are wrong, we simply should not adhere to them. But we should oppose views that are *dangerous*. Liberal religion is very rarely dangerous. Love one another; live and let live; be kind to strangers; do good to all. Liberal religion teaches such things, and even though I don’t agree with the religious views themselves, I agree with the ethical results.
Log in to Reply
Wilusa August 20, 2014
As I said, I don’t oppose religions because I believe they’re wrong (wrong *intellectually*). Like you, I would only actively oppose those that are *dangerous*.
I think where we differ is on the definition of fundamentalism. For most of my life, I would have defined a “fundamentalist” as a person who, if asked, would say he or she believed literally in the Biblical account of creation. (And probably, would say offhand that he or she believed everything in the Bible was true.) That’s it! If they were Catholic, it was likely that (a) they’d never *read* the Bible, and (b) those “beliefs” didn’t impact their *lives* at all.
And I would have thought of active, *aggressive* fundamentalists as being obsessed with denying evolution.
I do have that concern about religious schools…indoctrination. I really don’t know where the line should be drawn -the distinction between being free to practice the religion of your choice, and being free to indoctrinate children by telling them they already *are*, from birth, Catholics or whatever.
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 25, 2014
I do have that concern about anti-religious schools…indoctrination. I really don’t know where the line should be drawn. The state of our public schools is appalling. Metal detectors will be mandatory, not just in our inner cities like philadelphia, but across the nation, imo.
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 25, 2014
And I’m very uncomfortable with anti-religious groups being allowed to have *schools*. How can people have the right to worship freely if the government interferes with that constitutionally protected right?
Log in to Reply
shakespeare66 August 19, 2014
While watching the question and answer session, I noticed that the person who asked about the existence of Christ did not believe what you said even after putting the “world” of scholarship behind it ( your book Did Jesus Exist? and other scholars work). I assume that because you apologized by saying “I sympathize with your view, but…” This led me to think that these mythicists are doing the same thing as what fundamentalists do in the face of overwhelming evidence–they just don’t believe it. It is ironic that they do what they protest against. I suppose all you can do is to present what you know, and let the chips fall where they may. I am often stunned by how flippant fundamentalists are about the work of a scholar ( as my fundamentalist preacher “friend” casts you off like you are nobody). I said “How can you think that you know more or better than a man who has spent his life working on these issues?” She said, “I studied at Princeton Theological Seminary!” I said “Really? and you think you know as much as he does?” It was a circular discussion, and I quickly decided that we would no longer engage in any discussion about religion. She is certainly not open to it. So how do you continue to go on in the face of this kind of opposition?
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 25, 2014
“I am often stunned by how flippant fundamentalists are about the work of a scholar…”
Christians, too, are often stunned at deniers’ willingness to ignore overwhelming evidence that jesus is Christ.
Log in to Reply
shakespeare66 August 25, 2014
Jesus is Christ? What does that mean? What Christians lack (too often) is a willingness to investigate the knowledge that is out there about a variety of things. How stunning is it that 64% of Christians in this country deny evolution? I think that is beyond stunning. It is mind boggling. Try reading Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True. Oh, I’m sorry. People like you don’t read stuff like that because you can find all the answers in the Bible so you don’t need to read anything else. And even if you DID read it, you would still deny it it true and say it is a hoax or a conspiracy or some such nonsense. It is OKAY for you to live in your fantasy world. We don’t begrudge you living there, but please son’t step on my understanding of the world, of Jesus Christ, of evolution, of being gay, of anything that your “perfect” little moral Bible tells you is right about proper decorum for the world. Christians should be stunned at how flippant we can be about the life of Christ. I have read the 15 or so books that Dr. Ehrman has written on the subject because I wanted to know what scholars are saying about this subject. No one wants to take away your belief or your faith. Just leave those who don’t care for it alone. Instead of quoting me, ask a pertinent question—you might learn something for once in your life.
Log in to Reply
shakespeare66 November 3, 2014
There is no overwhelming evidence.
Log in to Reply
prestonp November 1, 2014
“This led me to think that these mythicists are doing the same thing as what fundamentalists do in the face of overwhelming evidence–they just don’t believe it.” Shake
There is no evidence that proves what you say. None.
Log in to Reply
shakespeare66 November 3, 2014
Why is there a large group of mythicists? The facts are all over the intrrnet!
Log in to Reply
Steefen August 19, 2014
Sorry, I’m 7 minutes into this and my orientation is yelling a big grumble. My Ancient Roman orientation is the Roman imposition that you bless the state, you bless the emperor. You express goodwill and cooperation to the state and you express goodwill and cooperation to the emperor. Why? Because a state is a fragile thing. The Republic fell. The Empire rose. Emperors were assassinated, went crazy, etc. The Empire fell.
So, it’s like you’re jumping to an irresponsible conclusion.
Bart Ehrman:
Freedom from religion does not mean opposing religion.
Freedom from religion means opposing the imposition of someone else’s religion on us.
StephenOABC:
But, we do not have Julius Caesar’s nephew in D.C. We do not have a fallen Republic raised to greatness by Augustus; Augustus who set the direction for the Roman Empire’s imperial cult, and as a result, Rome arguably was not a secular state.
Before I agree with you, the question must be posed: would you have wanted freedom from religion in the religious pluralism of Ancient Roman territory first century B.C.E. and first century C.E., Judea or anywhere else?
Was Rome a good influence, religiously, upon the areas it influenced?
Do you disagree with Paul, Dr. Ehrman?
Judaism did offer sacrifices for the emperor. When it stopped, the Jewish Revolt was on.
So, you’re a proponent of religious isolationism–putting religion in a closet, a bathroom, closed-door activity? Once people get together and really talk this through, we can agree on the lowest common denominators:
God is impersonal therefore persons need not interact with an impersonal God.
Problem: people will awe at the Grand Canyon, an impersonal object.
God is the Sun and the operation of its Solar System, provider of day and night. The Sun grounds us–keeping us from floating out into the Milky Way.
Some will say, this sets us back to Constantine’s pre-Christian Sol Invictus and possibly to Akhen-aten’s Power behind the Sun.
God is Authority and the ideal of Good Authority is partially how God gets personified.
Problem: assigning the attribute of authority to God is not a lowest common denominator of God. Authority is subject to interpretation.
In conclusion, if one takes the stance of Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, does your case really hold up against these? Would you be a Jewish zealot, rebel/bandit on this issue?
After applying your answer to the times of the emperors, we can see if your answer can apply to our current case.
Thank you.
Log in to Reply
Steefen August 21, 2014
Finished watching.
Jesus is God in the gospel of John, not so much in the Synoptics was thought-provoking. It, to me, shows a contradiction in the New Testament.
I would go further and say Jesus is not so much God in the Acts of the Apostles.
As you mentioned months ago, Jesus becomes God in the works of Paul.
“A religion needs a god: Jesus had to become God.” This helps separate Christianity from Judaism.
For Jesus to have existed with God, one should ask where was Jesus when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
Sorry, I don’t see Jesus as God. Jesus may be a third of a trinity, Jesus may be Lord, with authority over some areas. Jesus is a little light on his Heavenly Father being the Creator. His Father-God is a personification of “Life will work out, so, don’t concern yourself with what will you wear, what will you eat, you have enough problems for today.” Yes, the Earth was a place of abundant resources. When famine came to Judea, Prince-to-King Izates and Queen Helena fed the people, don’t worry. (We can say Prince and King Izates because he was a king of a small kingdom.) Yes, I can hear King Izates-Jesus speaking to the people as he fed them.
You can say Jesus became God but what was the quality of that notion of God? What is the quality of the claim? Jesus could have talked Adam & Eve out of the Fall. All Jesus had to do was tell Adam and Eve to say, “Get behind me Satan” (and, “I’m not yielding to your temptation” or “lead us, Adam & Eve, not into temptation.”
So, you’ve helped me see a major flaw in the Gospel of John.
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 23, 2014
“A religion needs a god: Jesus had to become God.” This helps separate Christianity from Judaism.
Did jesus indicate he needed a religion?
“For Jesus to have existed with God, one should ask where was Jesus when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.”
Why?
“His Father-God is a personification of ‘Life will work out, so, don’t concern yourself with what will you wear, what will you eat, you have enough problems for today.’”
Do you see a problem?
Log in to Reply
Steefen August 25, 2014
Did Jesus indicate he needed a new religion? It seems he indicated it to Paul and he indicated it to James who allowed Gentiles some leeway with respect to religious customs of Judaism.
It’s almost irrelevant whether or not Jesus indicated he needed a religion.
1) Remember or read The Grand Inquisitor by Fyodor Dostoyevsky.
2) Jesus’ own succession plan failed. He did not need a religion if the Jewish people would have supported him in the first incarnation/coronation as Son of Man of the Kingdom of Heaven/Righteousness with Star Prophecy as harbinger. So, Titus fulfilled the prophecies of the Son of Man, then, he became Emperor, and you might as well say when he died, he was deified like his father and now sits at the right hand of his deified father, Vespasian.
The irrelevancy. If Jesus’s Son of Man movement had succeeded, there would have been no need for him to start a new religion because Judaism would have been fulfilled and victorious. People would have come. Judaism would have grown had it delivered on Jesus’ promise of a kingdom of righteousness.
“For Jesus to have existed with God, one should ask where was Jesus when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.” Why?
John 8:58 (Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.)
Well, either Jesus would have allowed God’s will to be done and he could find another garden where he could agonize over this or his “Good Father” notion of God would have created a different test of Abraham’s loyalty.
according to Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz (Chief Rabbi of the British Empire), child sacrifice was actually “rife among the Semitic peoples,” and suggests that “in that age, it was astounding that Abraham’s God should have interposed to prevent the sacrifice, not that He should have asked for it.” Hertz interprets the Akedah as demonstrating to the Jews that human sacrifice is abhorrent. “Unlike the cruel heathen deities, it was the spiritual surrender alone that God required.” In Jeremiah 32:35, God states that the later Israelite practice of child sacrifice to the deity Molech “had [never] entered My mind that they should do this abomination.” – Binding of Isaac in Wikipedia
Hm, It’s certainly in Genesis. God denies?! in Jeremiah. It comes back to mind in the first century with the Father and Son of the gospels–the Father not taking away this cup from Jesus. It also comes back when God allows the food supply for Jews to be destroyed during the Jewish Revolt and some of the people started eating any and everything, including the food of cannibalism (see Cannibal Mary, an account in Josephus’ Wars of the Jews).
prestonp asked do I see a problem with this: “His Father-God is a personification of ‘Life will work out, so, don’t concern yourself with what will you wear, what will you eat, you have enough problems for today.’” Yes, prestonp, I see a problem: Some people who follow this become victims and they do not rise to the top to enforce this idyll for all.
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 25, 2014
Whom was he addressing?
prestonp August 31, 2014
“Jesus’ own succession plan failed”
How? What was his succession plan, exactly?
prestonp September 11, 2014
“I see a problem: Some people who follow this become victims and they do not rise to the top to enforce this idyll for all.”
Who specifically?
prestonp September 11, 2014
“prestonp asked do I see a problem with this: “His Father-God is a personification of ‘Life will work out, so, don’t concern yourself with what will you wear, what will you eat, you have enough problems for today”
Who said that?
Macavity August 20, 2014
Thanks for posting this lecture. I found it to be possibly the most valuable and interesting of all your lectures/debates I’ve watched.
However, I was surprised to hear you say (41 min): “They ended up with the idea that there are three distinct beings all three of whom are fully God – they’re distinct from one another, they’re all fully God, they’re all equally God – but there is only one God. That’s the doctrine of the trinity, that’s there’s one God manifest in three persons. And it doesn’t make sense rationally and it’s not meant to make sense rationally.”
If I understand you correctly you are saying that the doctrine of the trinity says there are three beings all of whom are God and that God is only one being. So, God is one being and God is not one being which obviously is a contradiction.
I thought the classical (4th and 5th century church fathers) definition of the doctrine of the Trinity goes something like this: God is of one essence (being), God is a plurality of persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and the words being and person do not denote the same thing. That statement is not a logical contradiction. Of course, just because a statement isn’t logically contradictory doesn’t make it true.
Wouldn’t it be simpler and less controversial just to say that you know of no compelling evidence to believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is true and leave it at that—rather than creating a paradoxical/nonclassical version of the doctrine of the Trinity and concluding that it is not worthy of belief by a rational person because it is self-contradictory?
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 20, 2014
Yes, your understanding of the classical definition is how I understand it too. But it still defies rational understanding, even if it is not irrational. (What defies understanding is how the three can be one and yet three; I do understand: three in person, one in essence. But figuring out how that can be, without sacrificing either the unity or the plurality is, in my judgment, beyond rational sense. I’m not saying it’s wrong — the properties of light are beyond rational sense as well)
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 23, 2014
“Albert Einstein once told a friend that quantum mechanics doesn’t hold water in his scientific world view because “physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance.” That spooky action at a distance is ENTANGLEMENT, a quantum phenomenon in which two particles, separated by ANY amount of distance, can instantaneously affect one another as if part of a unified system.
Now, scientists have successfully hijacked that quantum weirdness — doing so reliably for the first time — to produce what many sci-fi fans have long dreamt up: teleportation…”
Nick Statt
Sorry for posting too much. You are at fault. You are too interesting! (Will be finished in just a few more days. Hang in there.)
Log in to Reply
Lostallfaith August 24, 2014
Thank you very much for posting your lecture. Your words are so important to me as I have lost my 22 year old son to a very religious, Christian Fundamentalist Cult in Texas last Dec. I have read all your books and others, studied the historical Jesus and how the Bible became Holy and now am an agnostic. My husband, went the other path, becoming religious (we did not even attend church prior), seeking solace and understanding from the very book (Bible) that destroyed our son. We are now completely at odds. And so when I heard you say your wife was Christian, I had a brief moment of hope that my spouse and I could somehow come together in our sorrow under no religious doctrine. Religion has destroyed my family and yet I am trying to “compromise” and attend church, go through the motions yet I feel like an imposter. Our son no longer is allowed contact with us as we are “apostate” and this was even before I lost my faith…..how do you have a relationship with your spouse when you don’t believe the same things anymore….thank you for all your help in this time of despair.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 25, 2014
My wife and I have never believed the same things! But for neither of us is it a matter of eternal moment. It’s simply a disagreement in things we both find important — and so we work for mutual respect.
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 25, 2014
“Our son no longer is allowed contact with us as we are “apostate”…”lost”
He’s an adult. If he wishes to speak to you, he can. If he’s prevented from doing so, he’s been kidnapped. He isn’t permitted to speak to his believing father, either, because he too is apostate?
What denomination is this? Would you like someone to try to talk to him or to those in charge?
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 25, 2014
“Did Jesus indicate he needed a new religion? It seems he indicated it to Paul and he indicated it to James who allowed Gentiles some leeway with respect to religious customs of Judaism.” steefen
Jesus existed? If so, he was history when paul came along, wasn’t he?
“For Jesus to have existed with God, one should ask where was Jesus when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.”steefen
“Why?” Where was jesus and what difference does it make?
Log in to Reply
Steefen August 27, 2014
prestonp: Jesus existed?
Steefen: They certainly did. Jesus is a number of historical persons crafted with much care into a biblical Jesus–even the Homeric Epics were used to craft the Biblical Jesus.
Bart Ehrman says there are multiple attestations of Jesus.
One of the leading Jesuses of the historical Jesus group is King Izates who:
1) was an “only begotten son”
2) fed 5,000 a number of times during the famine of approximately 47 B.C.E.
3) had a royal blood line who wore crows of thorns
4) had a father who appears in the teachings of Jesus, Matthew 6: 19-20 (See: The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy: Insights on the Exodus, King David, the 23rd Psalm, Jesus and Paul, 1st Edition, by Steefen, ps 126-128.)
So, you are in error when you write: “He was history when Paul came along, wasn’t he?”
Log in to Reply
Steefen August 27, 2014
prestonp, I forgot to put an important reason for putting King Izates at the top of the historical Jesuses list; so point 3 becomes 3a and the reason I’m adding to make the list complete is 3b below. I’m also adding an additional reason, 3c.
1) was an “only begotten son”
2) fed 5,000 a number of times during the famine of approximately 47 B.C.E.
3a) had a royal blood line who wore crowns of thorns
3b) some of the kings wearing crowns of thorns had the name Manu.
Jesus is Em-manu-el which seems to mean With the Manu line of kings–who converted to Judaism with Queen Helena and following the example of Queen Helena and King Izates–is God. It does not mean With Us is God.
3c) in my book, I make an issue about Jesus grilling the pharisees: Is it not written in YOUR law… as opposed to, Is it not written in OUR law. For me, Jesus is phrasing as Queen Helena or King Izates would question a Jewish authority. We are not Jews, we are proselytes. For me, it is also Roman writers of a pro-Roman composite Jesus questioning Judaism. More important and very important: Queen Helena’s palace would seem to obligate her and sons to have some sort of understanding with Rome when it came to paying taxes. So, when Jesus is questioned by enemies trying to entrap him to tell Jews not to pay taxes to Caesar, the Queen Helena royal family would have a politically correct response. Queen Helena (see http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/helene-queen-of-adiabene) had to co-exist under Roman authority of the region. Did her family get a tax break for the famine relief that year? It probably could have been negotiated or could have been an item to hold against the Romans; for, we know her family tree fought against the Romans during the Jewish Revolt.
Mark 8: 18 “Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? …”
4) had a father who appears in the teachings of Jesus, Matthew 6: 19-20 (See: The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy: Insights on the Exodus, King David, the 23rd Psalm, Jesus and Paul, 1st Edition, by Steefen, ps 126-128.)
Matthew 6: 19-21 Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20“But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; 21for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 29, 2014
Most everyone agrees that there are huge differences between religion and spirituality. Anyone can claim to be speaking for god or jesus and many have. They do so in vain. They use his name to do all kinds of good and evil things and they are con-artists. Focusing on them or their institutions/churches is a choice and many choose it. Some are sure that that god and their words and actions are one. Some enjoy that perspective because it offers justification not to concentrate on the divine.
This guy jesus is quoted as saying that god is spirit. He supposedly added, if anybody wants to hang out with this spirit, it is accomplished through spirit. The guy who was rescued at the last split second? wasn’t baptized, did no good works, didn’t repent of anything, never tithed, never quit drinking or lusting after babes. He did express a thought: He don’t deserve this. We do. He don’t.
Instead of being “biblically correct”, jesus made a bizarre statement. Pal, this very day you and I will hang out in heaven together. (Wasn’t he supposed to wait a few days?) Some kind of connection sparked between them, spirit to spirit.
Log in to Reply
Steefen August 31, 2014
prestonp: He did express a thought: “He don’t deserve this. We do. He don’t.” Instead of being “biblically correct”, Jesus made a bizarre statement. Pal, this very day you and I will hang out in heaven together. (Wasn’t he supposed to wait a few days?) Some kind of connection sparked between them, spirit to spirit.
Steefen: You’re missing important ingredients. It wasn’t just that he thought Jesus did not deserve to be crucified but also: 1) he had a fear of God when he asks the other crucified man, “Don’t you even fear God?” 2) he told Jesus he had faith in Jesus’s kingdom. Jesus appreciated that. That was the connection sparked, spirit to spirit.
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 1, 2014
And, he wasn’t a fundamentalist, or a literalist, or an expert on new testament inerrancy or dispensationalism. He wasn’t a Baptist, or rich or poor, literate, free or a slave, wasn’t cleansed from his sinful nature, didn’t speak in tongues, couldn’t define the trinity, Christ didn’t take him down miraculously, but he experienced the exact same “born from above” relationship as Dr. Bart from what I can tell.
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 2, 2014
So, what exactly did he “do” to become qualified to go to heaven? That very day, Christ promised, the two of them would be together in heaven. Where in the new testament does it say he gets to go to heaven? It wasn’t written at that point.
Log in to Reply
Steefen August 30, 2014
The second most important historical Jesus, after King Izates, is Emperor Vespasian.
Christ Jesus can be understood as terms as opposed to a singular person. Christ would mean Messiah. Jesus would mean Savior or God Saves. Three historians claim Emperor Vespasian was Christ Jesus because he was the leader promised in the Star Prophecy. Those historians were Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus.
The third most important historical Jesus after Emperor Vespasian is the Woe-Saying Jesus.
Now, the problem I have with Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman and How Jesus became God by Bart Ehrman is that we have three ancient historians who claim Paul’s Christ Jesus = Messiah Savior of the Star Prophecy to be Vespasian. With Rome, the Victors, writing history and writing a non-militant, pro-Roman Jesus and a religion about Jesus through Paul, — Did Jesus Exist does not have an index but — these books need to confirm, not the three tenors but the three historians. Vespasian becomes deified within 20 years of Jesus becoming God.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 31, 2014
We don’t have any ancient historians who claim that Christ was Vespasian.
Log in to Reply
Steefen September 1, 2014
The “Star Prophecy” (or Star and Scepter prophecy) is a Messianic reading applied by radical Jews and early Christians to Numbers 24:17. The Star Prophecy was applied to the coming Messiah himself in contemporary radical Jewish documents, such as the apocalyptic War Scroll found at Qumran.
Now for the Ancient Historians who claimed Christ was Vespasian, Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus:
[Vespasian] had not arrived at the government without Divine Providence, but a righteous kind of fate had brought the empire under his power. Josephus War of the Jews 4, 10, 622
But what more than all else incited them to the war was an ambiguous oracle also found in their sacred writings, that ‘At about that time, one from their country would become ruler of the habitable world.’ This they took to mean one of their own people and many of the wise men were misled in their interpretaion. This oracle, however, in reality, signified the government of Vespasian, who was proclaimed emperor while in Judea. – Josephus Wars VI, 312-313.
There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief that it was fated for men coming from Judea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome–as afterwards appeared from the event–the people of Judea took to themselves. – Suetonius, Life of Vespasian, 4-5
The majority [of the Jews] were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judea would go forth men destined to rule the world. This mysterious prophecy really referred to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, true to the selfish ambitions of mankind, thought that this exalted destiny was reserved for them and not even their calamities opened their eyes to the truth. – Tacitus, Histories, 5.13
Log in to Reply
Steefen September 1, 2014
Vespasian saved us from militant, zealous, messianic rebel Jews just as today we need to be saved from militant, zealous, rebels of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria committing genocide against Christians, beheading adults and children. (NPR transcript: http://wmra.org/post/spectacle-beheading-grisly-act-long-history )
For people to miss the assignment of the Star Prophecy by three historians away from Jesus to Vespasian and Titus is to miss the historically accurate picture of Christianity in Antiquity. Jesus is assigned the title of Messiah as Roman propaganda to appease messiah loving zealots but corrupting the love for a militant messiah for a pacifist messiah. Josephus saw Vespasian and Titus as doing the work of the Messiah of God.
Log in to Reply
Steefen September 4, 2014
Wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? (Matthew Chapter 2) Rome was the kingdom over the Jews. Who did King Herod the Great listen to? He listened to the emperor of Rome. After Herod the Great, who appointed his sons in authority in the region? Rome. Afterwards, who appointed Pontius Pilate? Who appointed the high priests? The kingdom that was at hand, politically, was Rome.
Dr. Ehrman, the crown of Christ was taken away from any Jewish man or proselyte and given to Roman men, father and son, Vespasian and Titus.
Regarding God empowering General and Emperor Vespasian (the father) and General and Emperor Titus (the son)–Rome–Matthew 21: 42-44: “Did you never read in the scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; by the Lord has this been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes’? Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people (the Romans) that will produce its fruit. The one who falls on this stone will be dashed to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls.” The stone will crush anyone on whom it falls is a reference to a Roman weapon of victory over Jewish rebels used during the Roman Jewish War. The Roman military threw stones that crushed anyone on whom it fell. God has done this. By Roman victory over the Jews, the Kingdom of God/Righteousness/Heaven and its king/emperor was taken away from the Jews and given to Rome. Even the early Christianity of the Roman Church did better than the early Christianity of Jerusalem.
Historians, Bible, History, Jesus, and Star Prophecy claim Vespasian as Christ, later deified by Rome’s Senate, the Senate of the Kingdom of God. Then the Senate of the Kingdom of God deified the son, Titus as Father and Son became God in the new covenant, Christianity. The network of the emperor cults in Asia Minor was a network used by Paul. Paul working through the network of Palestine isn’t how history unfolded.
Log in to Reply
Steefen September 9, 2014
At Church Sunday, we learned that the Roman Empire WAS seen as God’s Kingdom after Christianity was the religion of the Empire. The minister said people were only allowed to read the book of Revelation metaphorically and not literally, as Rome, at the time of its writing was the evil empire.
But what is this about Rome being God’s Kingdom for the Son of Man within jesus’s present generation (at or within 40 years from Jesus crucifixion, or at or within 40 years of Jesus’s last year of preaching ministry).
Well, when Josephus fell for Rome as a political alternative to Jerusalem, he fell hard. Seriously, he had reason to do so. Last night, I was doing some reading in Josephus and it stated that when the rebels were fighting among themselves (John, Simon, and Eleazar), John and Simon burned the stores of corn, which led to the starvation of Jews during the Jewish Revolt. It also led to cannibalism, for at least one adult who ate her male child. Josephus lamented the state of Jerusalem under these three rebels/bandits/what have you, that he felt a need for a Messiah/Savior/Kingdom. He saw that in Vespasian, Titus, and the Roman Empire.
I felt there was a need to add more to the concept of how the ancient historian Josephus saw the Star of Bethlehem/Star Prophecy fulfilled in Vespasian.
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 30, 2014
As intelligent and knowledgeable as most of Dr. Bart’s posters are, they shouldn’t need to be reminded of the vast gulf between those who use his name and those who try to live in his name.
Log in to Reply
prestonp August 31, 2014
One of the key discoveries that led to Flew’s recognition
of the existence of intelligence was what modern
science has learned about DNA: “Biologists’ investigation
of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable
complexity of the arrangements needed to produce life,
that intelligence must have been involved” (p. 123).
Three main arguments compelled Flew to admit the
need for an Intelligent Source: (1) the presence of
detailed laws of nature, (2) the finely tuned universe
that was perfectly receptive to life, and (3) the question
of how and why life emerged from nothing (p. 89).
There Is a God
by
Antony Flew
with Roy Abraham Varghese
HarperOne Reading and Discussion Guide for There Is a God
Log in to Reply
SBrudney091941 August 31, 2014
Dr. Ehrman, overall, I am so appreciative of what you share in this lecture and of your your work generally. But there are some mistakes here, I think. First, I think you were quoting Mark: “Thou art my beloved Son….” This has nothing to do with miraculous birth virgin or otherwise or being the literal, much less the begotten, son of God as I think you were suggesting (at 68, however, my memory is slipping). And this RVS translation, in my view, cheats by capitalizing “son.” There is no divinity implied. But the other mistake that keeps getting perpetuated all around us every day is that of quoting John 10:30, “I and the Father are one,” as evidence that John taught Jesus was God. On the face of it, sure. But later in 17:11 Jesus prays to his Father that “they [the people or believers before him] may be one, even as we [you and I, Father] are one.” Jesus is not praying to his Father here that the people may become identical with one another. The oneness in 10:30, therefore, means something other than identity.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman August 31, 2014
No, I don’t think that Mark understands Jesus to have been born of a virgin or to have pre-existed his birth (did I suggest this?). On John 10:30, I’m not so sure. If he wasn’t making a divine claim, why did his Jewish opponents take up stones to stone him?
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 9, 2014
But Dr., you don’t believe any of the words in john are those of jesus.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 9, 2014
There may be some authentic words of Jesus in John, just as there are in other Gospels. The question is always *which* words are authentic.
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 10, 2014
Dr., there is rejoicing sweeping across the land of my heart tonight! Do you realize what just happened?
An earthquake shook the Northern Hemisphere! Dr. Bart acknowledged we may have the actual words spoken by Christ in the gospels! Just teasing ya.
Why would Christ celebrate a last supper if he was unaware of his fate?
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 10, 2014
Yes, I’ve written an entire book indicating what in the Gospels actually goes back to Jesus, so it’s not a surprise that I think some things do!
I never said Christ celebrated the last supper. I said he *had* a last supper. I.e., there was a final meal he had, probably with his disciples, probably a Passover meal. What he said and did then is up to debate.
prestonp September 11, 2014
How did he know it would be his last supper?
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 11, 2014
I’m not sure he did.
prestonp September 1, 2014
Read on. 31 “Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 1, 2014
Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, 30 but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life. 31 “But many who are first will be last, and the last, first.”
Who is this guy? Who does he think he is? And, how does he know what will happen to people eternally if they put him and his mission above all? Why does he think he is so important that he can offer those who follow him abundance in this life and in eternity? And where the heck is he going, anyway, that people should follow him?
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 10, 2014
Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, 30 but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life. 31 “But many who are first will be last, and the last, first.”
Dr., who else could have said the above? Who in his right mind would make up such promises for Christ to make? I just can’t imagine how it could happen. Why would anyone dream up stuff like that? What could its “creator” derive from making such claims? It doesn’t make any sense to me. I think they are his words.
Log in to Reply
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 10, 2014
Lots of people could have said or written that. Why couldn’t they? What would have stopped them? Do you think the words of Jesus in, say, the Gospel of Thomas must necessarily go back to him because they are so astounding and unlike what people normally say?
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 11, 2014
Dr., would you quote someone else who spoke words like those, please?
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 11, 2014
I’d suggest youread the non-canonical Gospels.
prestonp September 12, 2014
“After that again he went through the village, and a child ran and dashed against his shoulder. And Jesus was provoked and said unto him: Thou shalt not finish thy course (lit. go all thy way). And immediately he fell down and died. But certain when they saw what was done said: Whence was this young child born, for that every word of his is an accomplished work And the parents of him that was dead came unto Joseph, and blamed him, saying: Thou that hast such a child canst not dwell with us in the village: or do thou teach him to bless and not to curse: for he slayeth our children.
V. 1 And Joseph called the young child apart and admonished him, saying: Wherefore doest thou such things, that these suffer and hate us and persecute us But Jesus said: I know that these thy words are not thine: nevertheless for thy sake I will hold my peace: but they shall bear their punishment. And straightway they that accused him were smitten with blindness. 2 And they that saw it were sore afraid and perplexed…”
You are right. Anyone could have written this. It in no way compares with Christ’s words. No one has spoken like he did, imo. Do you believe, whoever wrote what is in Thomas, was on the same level with the canonical gospels?
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 12, 2014
Sorry — I was referring to the sayings in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, not the stories of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.
prestonp September 12, 2014
Do you have others you could reference whom you find to be similar to Christ’s phraseology?
Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman September 12, 2014
I’d suggest you look at the book my colleague Zlatko Plese and I produced, The Other Gospels.
prestonp September 20, 2014
“Lots of people could have said or written that. Why couldn’t they? What would have stopped them? Do you think the words of Jesus in, say, the Gospel of Thomas must necessarily go back to him because they are so astounding and unlike what people normally say?” Dr. Bart
1. No one has.
2. Good question. They are not god.
3. No. The words in Thomas are nothing like christ’s words.
prestonp September 12, 2014
“Lots of people could have said or written that. Why couldn’t they? What would have stopped them? Do you think the words of Jesus in, say, the Gospel of Thomas must necessarily go back to him because they are so astounding and unlike what people normally say?”
Wesley Center Online
Gospel Of Thomas Greek Text A
From “The Apocryphal New Testament” M.R. James-Translation and Notes Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924
Introduction
The older testimonies about this book have been given already. I now present the three principal forms of it, as given by Tischendorf: two Greek texts, A and B, and one Latin.
The few Greek manuscripts are all late. The earliest authorities are a much abbreviated Syriac version of which the manuscript is of the sixth century, and a Latin palimpsest at Vienna of the fifth or sixth century, which has never been deciphered in full.
The Latin version translated here is found in more manuscripts than the Greek; none of them, I think, is earlier than the thirteenth century.
The stories of Thomas the Israelite, the Philosopher, concerning the works of the Childhood of the Lord.
I. I, Thomas the Israelite, tell unto you, even all the brethren that are of the Gentiles, to make known unto you the works of the childhood of our Lord Jesus Christ and his mighty deeds, even all that he did when he was born in our land: whereof the beginning is thus:
etc., etc
Adam Clarke unequivocally affirmed the full trustworthiness
or inerrancy of Scripture. In his article on “The
Principles of the Christian Religion,” he stated, “The
Bible . . . is a revelation from God himself, and declares
his will relative to the salvation of men….men
may err, but the Scriptures cannot; for it is the Word
of God himself, who can neither mistake, deceive,
nor be deceived” [Works, 12:132]. He frequently and
approvingly quoted the saying concerning Scriptures
that they have “God for their Author, salvation for
their end, and truth, without mixture of error, for their
matter” [Works,11:406]. In his Commentary he categorically
stated that “The apostles were assisted and
preserved from error by the Spirit of God; and therefore
were enabled to deliver to us an unerring rule of
faith.” The Holy Spirit did not permit them “to err in
the delivery of what was thus indited in his name or
which they had written as apostles of God the Father,
and our Lord Jesus Christ” [Commentary, 5:9, 11].
Clarke took inerrancy of Scripture as meaning that it
is without error in all it affirms as fact, and not
inerrant in what it does not affirm. For instance, the
chronological sequence of recorded events may not
be necessarily reflected in historical accounts, such
as in the Gospels, unless the sequence is specifically
affirmed. Furthermore, in the recording of conversations
it is not necessary to have “the very words” but
the “true intent and meaning” of the exact words.
However, he believed that John 14:20 does promise
exactness in the recording of Jesus’ exact words
[Commentary, 5:10].
Clarke stoutly defended the canonicity and textual
purity of the Scriptures. The canon as we have it is
complete and authentic. The Scriptures have been
transmitted to us “without addition, defalcation, or
willful corruption of any kind.” He refers to 2 Timothy
3:16-17 in support of this. In Clarke’s opinion,
the textual variants are not significant enough to lead
to any doctrinal error or obscurity or confusion in
moral practice. “All is safe and sound—all pure and
holy, it is . . . the unadulterated gospel of Jesus
Christ.” With regard to particular textual variants,
such as 1 John 5:7, he honestly admits that he did not
believe that was yet fully settled. He did believe
however, that the Joshua 21:35-36 problem is solved
by 1 Chronicles 6:78-79 [Works, 6:388, 415].
Adam Clarke on the Use of Scripture
Clarke believed in the eternal applicability of God’s
Word. In his practical suggestions on how to read the
Bible he advised Christians to read it as the very
word of God Himself because God “considers it as
much his word now as he did when he first spoke it”
[Works, 11:416].
THE ARMINIAN
Log in to Reply
prestonp September 13, 2014
“…many biblical scholars who are deeply committed Christians would agree with Bart Ehrman that Jesus makes no explicit claims to be God in the Synoptics, and would also agree that the words of Jesus in the Gospel of John are not to be taken as actual quotes of Jesus but as theological meditations or discourse…”
If every bible scholar believed that, it still would have no bearing on his divinity. 2,000 years after he was here, he remains the central figure in human history.
“No, I completely disagree. Intelligent and thoughtful Christians have substantial reason for thinking Jesus is GoDr. Bart
d.” From a brilliant agnostic with strong atheistic tendencies. When people have a born again experience , as I am sure you know, there is a lot of emotion and a lot of hype at that moment
“They are theologically sophisticated people who realize that Jesus could be God even if he never said so…”
When did he fail to make his divinity known?
No one mistook him for bozo. He wasn’t accused of being a circus clown. He wasn’t exactly concealing his miracles or denying his equality with god. He wasn’t murdered for being a nut job, was he? He wasn’t despised for being a hypocritical get-rich quit, smooth talking, slick, greedy preacher boy, right?
“I AM” signaled nothing significant in those who heard him he say that?
Even the demoniac recognized him immediately and was scared to death.
ولدت من جديد
tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
hwl said, “Religious people do what they think makes sense to them. I think in some Christian circles, the idea that one needs a child-like faith encourages an infantile religious worldview…”
shakespeare66 August 26, 2014
said, “It appears to be the one you are holding.”
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
by Rich Deem https://plus.google.com/105440427757499026037/posts?hl=en
atheists are up in arms thinking that Professor Antony Flew has lost his mind. Flew, age 81, has been a legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, stating that “onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist.”1 However, in 2004, Prof. Flew did the unheard of action of renouncing his atheism because “the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.”2 In a recent interview, Flew stated, “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution:
“It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.”3
In Flew’s own words, he simply “had to go where the evidence leads.”4 According to Flew, “…it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before.”2 Flew also indicated that he liked arguments that proceeded from big bang cosmology.
“The assertion that Jesus is God is arguably the single most important development in Western civilization.”
I don’t think Jesus ever claimed to be God. (There is nothing, nothing, that is more obvious, more clear, more certain, anywhere, about anything, than that Christ claimed to be divine. It is unmistakable. It is not possible for a healthy, rational, adult human being- one who is not impaired intellectually-to miss that reality as portrayed in the n.t. )
You really should read my book How Jesus Became God.
I am reading your extensive work and so far, I have found nothing that challenges his reality in a substantive fashion.
But there have been lots and lots of people who *have* claimed to be God, as you surely know.
Not one is anything like this guy. Not close, Dr. Bart.
Some things are so true and real and alive and touching and life-giving and penetrating and sweet and powerful and special, that an explanation or words of any kind, and all arguments lay silent. The most beautiful piece of music, the most glorious sunset, the prettiest poem, the deepest feeling of love, the rapture of being born from above, cannot be defined, added to, subtracted from or enhanced. They are life itself.
“I don’t think psychology is a matter of being tricked into ruses. The psychology of religion is a profound and complicated field. Again, I’d suggest you do some reading to help inform your opinions.” Dr. Bart
What you experienced during your religious conversion, whatever else it was, it was not based on any facts and evidence that proved jesus was in fact god, because he wasn’t, in your opinion. “Jesus” never became real to you because he’s not real, period; he was not god and is not god. Whatever you experienced, by your definition, was not jesus.
Log in to Reply
prestonp October 28, 2014
I like what you have said about the different types of god, Bart . I have come to learn that religion is mostly a hoax- maybe a well meaning hoax but non-the-less a hoax.
Far from being the only ones to hold the “traditional” view of God, the view held by fundamentalists is a recent development and theologically unsophisticated compared to many older views of God.
The more we debate the existence of God, the more people will change their definition of God in order to fit a round peg into a square hole
Can the historical and current racism against the Jewish people be linked to Christianity in general and specifically the Gospel of John? If so, I am in fact horrified.
Not just to John, but in my view there was no such thing as anti-Judaism per se until Christainity arose.
Reading your affirmation literally gave me chills right now … how horrific. Then this is one of the worst examples of Religious imperialism.
I am often stunned by how flippant fundamentalists are about the work of a scholar ( as my fundamentalist preacher “friend” casts you off like you are nobody).
What Christians lack (too often) is a willingness to investigate the knowledge that is out there about a variety of things. How stunning is it that 64% of Christians in this country deny evolution? I think that is beyond stunning. It is mind boggling. Try reading Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True. Oh, I’m sorry. People like you don’t read stuff like that because you can find all the answers in the Bible so you don’t need to read anything else. And even if you DID read it, you would still deny it it true and say it is a hoax or a conspiracy or some such nonsense. It is OKAY for you to live in your fantasy world. We don’t begrudge you living there, but please son’t step on my understanding of the world, of Jesus Christ, of evolution, of being gay, of anything that your “perfect” little moral Bible tells you is right about proper decorum for the world. Christians should be stunned at how flippant we can be about the life of Christ. I have read the 15 or so books that Dr. Ehrman has written on the subject because I wanted to know what scholars are saying about this subject. No one wants to take away your belief or your faith. Just leave those who don’t care for it alone. Instead of quoting me, ask a pertinent question—you might learn something for once in your life.
Your words are so important to me as I have lost my 22 year old son to a very religious, Christian Fundamentalist Cult … Religion has destroyed my family and yet I am trying to “compromise” and attend church, go through the motions yet I feel like an imposter. Our son no longer is allowed contact with us as we are “apostate” and this was even before I lost my faith…..how do you have a relationship with your spouse when you don’t believe the same things anymore….thank you for all your help in this time of despair.
(No one can prevent a 22 year old son from contacting his parents, legally. No one responded when asked what denomination this is or if she’d like help. I know of no CFC in the world that forbids a 22 year old man from contacting whomever he wants.)
Racism. Anti-Christian accusations are inappropriate. Anti-Christian rhetoric is the “New Racism.” It flows freely, gleefully, and it is wrong.
Log in to Reply
Subscribe to Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search by Keyword or User Name
Bart’s Recent Posts
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015
More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015
My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015
BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015
On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015
“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015
Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015
My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015
What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015
Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015
Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015
My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015
My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015
Archives
Select Month April 2015 (19) March 2015 (27) February 2015 (21) January 2015 (22) December 2014 (26) November 2014 (23) October 2014 (23) September 2014 (26) August 2014 (26) July 2014 (25) June 2014 (25) May 2014 (42) April 2014 (42) March 2014 (39) February 2014 (37) January 2014 (45) December 2013 (45) November 2013 (40) October 2013 (45) September 2013 (42) August 2013 (44) July 2013 (48) June 2013 (45) May 2013 (40) April 2013 (43) March 2013 (44) February 2013 (43) January 2013 (52) December 2012 (46) November 2012 (44) October 2012 (55) September 2012 (51) August 2012 (46) July 2012 (54) June 2012 (51) May 2012 (38) April 2012 (18)
Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
Latest Additions
The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...
More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...
One Time Donation to Foundation
Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!
This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.
Monthy Reoccuring Donations
When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112
Enter Your Donation Amount
Login
Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Register | Lost your Password?
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design
Return to Top
http://ehrmanblog.org/freedom-from-religion-foundation-lecture/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment