Block 1 - Ehrman, Pages 3-53

In the first chapter Ehrman is attempting to demonstrate a line of continuity between apocalyptic thinking in the 20th century and the views of Jesus himself. His review of various expressions of apocalyptic writing in the 20th century might seem rather curious in a book about Jesus. But this approach fits Ehrman's intentions well. Even though it might strike us as odd that throughout Christian history people have attempted to determine the expected date on which the world as we know it will end, Ehrman intends to make the case that they are only reflecting the mindset of Jesus, from whom these ideas originate. The basic argument that Ehrman will make on this point is that if the Judaism from which Jesus emerges (John the Baptist and his apocalyptic preaching) and the earliest known writer on Christian topics (the Apostle Paul in his letters) both hold apocalyptic expectations, it only makes sense that the link between the two (Jesus) will also prove to have held apocalyptic expectations.

Ehrman wants you to believe that the majority of modern critical scholarship believes the same as he does on this topic, but you will find out, that this is not the case. Paul just as likely brought his apocalyptic views with him from Pharisaic Judaism. Many scholars believe that the Pharisees are the most likely source of the Jewish apocalyptic writings of the same era as Jesus and Paul (found in what is referred to as the "Old Testament Pseudepigrapha"). It is entirely possible that Jesus was using language of the Kingdom of God that could be interpreted in an apocalyptic fashion without Jesus actually intending for it to be understood that way. But Ehrman would counter that such talk only muddies the picture, and his apocalyptic solution to the meaning of the Kingdom language in the mouth of Jesus most easily explains why Jesus said what he did. But there are plenty of scholars who believe that what Jesus taught is more complex or nuanced than what Ehrman would lead us to believe. Of course Ehrman would come back and say that such interpretations of the sayings of Jesus are only the ingenious creations of scholars who want to fashion a Jesus they can believe in and who is not an apocalyptic prophet. And in fact, Ehrman is one of a few Jesus scholars who really has No personal stake in the outcome of his studies of Jesus. You will discover as the semester progresses that there have been and are no shortage of scholars who both consciously and unconsciously attempt to fashion a Jesus they can believe in. Ehrman's point is that the simplest explanation is the best, and that simplest explanation of the Kingdom language in the mouth of Jesus is that he saw himself as an apocalyptic prophet.

In chapter 2 (page 21 and following), Ehrman makes the case that taking the Gospel narratives at face value is surrendering one's intelligence as a participant in the modern world. If modern people do not go around expecting miracles to happen, then there is no reason to believe they happened as the Gospels portray them. Some of what Ehrman says about the rise of critical thinking on Jesus I also mentioned in an earlier blog entry. He spends a lot of time discussing Strauss, and for the purpose of pointing out that someone got it right, back in 1835 (at least as far as modern historical criticism is concerned).

To make his case that Strauss got it right , Ehrman examines the story of Jesus' crucifixion in John and the conflicting details in the birth narratives. Admittedly, there is definitely a problem with the historical chronology of events in John's story of the crucifixion. But with the birth narratives, these discrepancies are only an issue if one is intent on looking at apparent discrepancies as contradictions that indicate two events could not have both happened as narrated. That is, Ehrman sees the story of the flight to Egypt (Matthew) and Jesus' appearance at the temple (Luke) as occupying the same historical time frame. But there are a number of ways that one can harmonize these two birth narratives, if one is willing to accept the premise that each author had only part of the story. Ehrman, like many other modern critical scholars, solves the problem of discrepancies by positing that the bulk of each birth narrative arises from the creative imagination of that Gospel's author.

Ehrman concludes chapter 2 with the statement that the Gospel stories were never intended to be taken as actual factual history. Rather they were composed as a vehicle for a particular theological message in which the factual nature of the events is not the author's foremost concern. However, there are also plenty of scholars who would say that what actually happened does matter, and that the message of Jesus would be discredited if the events narrated are proven false. Such thinking goes in two directions. One example would be those who posit that the believable Jesus is only what remains after rigorous examination, in which all material with a high degree of probability that it did not come from Jesus is removed from the picture (some times Borg and other members of the "Jesus Seminar" fall into this category), but the result is a much diminished Jesus from what we find on the face of the Gospel narratives. The other example would be those conservative scholars at the other end of the theological spectrum who are certain that the Gospel narratives are fundamentally sound historically, and they set out to prove this to be true.

There are a number of American Jesus scholars that, like the controversial Strauss of yesteryear, who say that the religious value of the Gospels is not dependent upon their factual accuracy but on the spiritually persuasive power of the message it contains. And there are many modern clergy persons who have held and preached this viewpoint, bracketing out the historical question and instead examining the theological content for a relevant religious message for today. For the purposes of this course, we will not examine the contemporary religious relevance of Jesus' message, but focus our attention on establishing the degree of probability that what is narrated in the Gospels actually happened. But we would do well to watch out for statements that scholars make that would indicate a predisposition to believe or disbelieve that a certain statement or action came from Jesus based on the scholar's undisclosed ideological tendencies.

In chapter 3 Ehrman does a nice job of explaining the modern critical viewpoint on the anonymous identity of the Gospels' authors. It is now the common opinion among all modern critical scholars that the traditions (from Papias) about the authorship of the Gospels does not hold up to serious examination. I am not so sure one must be so skeptical on this matter, but there is no question that the view Ehrman expresses is the widely held view on this topic. Likewise Ehrman reflects the common modern critical view in his discussion of the transmission of the sayings of Jesus and the stories about Jesus. But one must note that to carry this line of thinking all the way through in the way Ehrman does, one must be inclined to say that only that which can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to the most skeptical scholar to have come from the historical Jesus will be credited to Jesus. But this sets the burden-of-proof quite high (as we will see later), and it (in my mind) emerges as a questionable methodological principle.

The main point that Ehrman is trying to get across in chapter 3 is that the stories of Jesus circulated orally for many years after his death (no argument there), and that they were adapted to fit the various emerging situations in which the early Christians found themselves (room for debate here). Ehrman is saying that the relevance of the message of Jesus to whomever it was told, in whatever part of the Roman empire that happened to be, was the determining factor of the shape that the stories of Jesus took as they developed in the first several decades of Christianity. Most modern critical scholars say the majority of the "shaping" of these stories took place in the 40's, and then became more set in a certain form by the late 50's (continuing to be handed on orally) and were then written down for the first time no earlier than 70 CE.

Another note on Ehrman's technique in chapter 3, concerning his discussion of the question of the historical reliability of the oral transmission of the stories of Jesus (see page 48 bottom half & page 52 top half): Ehrman is skeptical of the accuracy of the transmission of the Jesus stories. However, on page 58 he mentions the Roman historian Tacitus (115 CE) writing about Nero (65 CE) and raises no questions about the reliability of information that is 50 years old, whereas the stories of Jesus circulate orally for 40 years and he concludes they have been greatly manipulated along the way. This is a methodological inconsistency in my opinion, which betrays an inherent bias against the historical value of the Gospels.