Ehrman, Chapter 9

In this chapter Ehrman takes up where I left off at the end of my discussion of the development of the Historical Critical Method. In this chapter we see how Ehrman applies the criteria of authenticity to the study of the historical Jesus. As is typical for Ehrman, I think he overstates the problem of the sources, or the lack of historically reliable sources. Ehrman mentions that Jesus is never mentioned by any pagan writer until 115 CE as if this is cause for concern about the historical value of any writing about Jesus. But this is easily explained by the fact that for the most part, earliest Christianity was a religious movement that gained most of its adherents from people of the lower social class, the servant class. That's not the kind of development that pagan Roman writers would consider newsworthy. The most they might do is complain to each other about their servants getting mixed up is a very strange oriental religion. Part of the reason for the lack of non-Christian writings about Jesus (in addition to the fact that people of the wealthy classes wrote about themselves and not the heroes of their servants, and the servant class could rarely read or write) is the fact that not as much writing at all went on in antiquity as we might imagine. Even as recently as colonial America the town crier was as important as the daily broadside (one sheet newspaper). Most information was passed on by word of mouth, not in written documents. Though early Christianity quickly became a religion of written documents in the second century, in the first century it was largely a religious movement with an oral culture.

When Ehrman sets up the ideal criteria for reconstructing the past (page 128, col. 1) , it would not be until the European Renaissance that we find sufficient documentation of any events that would fulfill these criteria. There are plenty of sources (that I would call reliable) for many significant events in the years from the early middle ages onward, but it is most unusual to find independent corroboration of a particular historical event in another account of the same event.

Concerning Ehrman and the criteria of authenticity (see Using Our Sources, page 129), in #3 Ehrman mentions the criterion of dissimilarity and offers a good explanation of it. What he calls, "the more the better" (#2) is what I label "multiple attestation;" and what he calls "more contextually credible" is what I label "coherence." Ehrman does not employ the criterion which I call "embarrassment." Whenever he addresses a passage I would place in this category he puts it under dissimilarity.

In reading Ehrman's section on Jewish Apocalypticism, it is necessary to keep in mind that Ehrman considers Jesus a failed apocalyptic prophet. No New Testament scholar denies that Jewish apocalypticism was "in the air" as a part of the options in Jewish belief during Jesus' lifetime, but few modern scholars share Ehrman's assurance that Jesus expected the end of the world as we know it real soon, and of course Jesus was wrong. Many of the movements within Palestinian Judaism that sought to have the land rid of the Romans held apocalyptic beliefs. And the Pharisees believed there would be a final judgment, but most did not seem to have expected it to happen soon. But to some of the people who felt oppressed by the Roman occupation and longed for the vindication of God's rule over the land, apocalyptic beliefs seemed very appealing. Ehrman does a very good job of explaining the tenets of Jewish apocalypticism in the time of Jesus (pages 130-132).

In the section titled, "The Beginning and End as Keys to the Middle," Ehrman makes his case for his belief that since Jesus and several of his disciples were directly connected with and influenced by the apocalyptic prophet John the Baptist, and many early Christians held apocalyptic beliefs (especially Paul, as in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-57), that the only way to explain this similarity is if the link in the middle between the two (Jesus) also held an apocalyptic expectation. This may be true, but one obvious possible explanation that Ehrman does not consider is that Paul was probably an apocalyptic Pharisee before he became an apocalyptic Christian evangelist. And there are a good number of scholars who believe that Jesus' break with John the Baptist was directly over a disagreement concerning the imminence of the end. In boxes 9.3 (page 134) and box 9.4 (page 135) Ehrman offers his rebuttal to the two suggestions most commonly offered historical critical scholars who do not believe that Jesus preached an apocalyptic message.

Beginning with this premise, Ehrman goes on to explain the entire message of Jesus from an apocalyptic perspective. Based on his apocalyptic interpretation of the "temple incident" Ehrman is convinced that Jesus died because he "proclaimed the imminent downfall of the social order and the advent of a new kingdom to replace the corrupt ruling powers" (page 136). Many other scholars agree that the "temple incident" is what started the process rolling that led to his crucifixion. But most are not so convinced that Jesus' critique of temple practices falls into the category of apocalyptic prophesy.

Aside: Ehrman's box 9.5 is another critique of a scholar Ehrman is very much at odds with in their interpretations of Jesus. He is John Dominic Crossan (also mentioned in 9.4), and Crossan has come up with some very creative interpretations of sayings and events in the life of Jesus. Ehrman would not have to take the time to offer a rebuttal to Crossan's ideas (that are often far-fetched) except for the fact that Crossan has been very influential among American New Testament scholars.

Concerning "Jesus' Associations," Ehrman does have a point that the 12 disciples most likely corresponds to the expectation in some Jewish apocalyptic circles that a time will come when God will restore the 12 tribes of Israel, as an event when God will make right every thing that has gone wrong with the place of the people Israel in the world order. Some New Testament scholars see this more in terms of God establishing his rule or reign (=kingdom) in a non-political, non-territorial manner. In other words, maybe Jesus did not expect the arrival of the kingdom of God will be accompanied by the cataclysmic events of Ehrman's apocalyptic model. Most scholars would agree that Jesus' associations with his disciples and with sinners does pertain to the "coming of the kingdom of God," without supposing it has to be the expectation of God's total rule preceded by apocalyptic events.

On Jesus and his miracles. Ehrman has no inclination to believe Jesus actually performed a miracle, but he cannot deny that Jesus clearly had the reputation in his own lifetime as a miracle worker. I believe Ehrman is also correct when he interprets the accounts of Jesus' exorcisms as having apocalyptic overtones. I would explain this in terms of dualism (which Ehrman has already mentioned in regard to apocalypticism), in which the exorcisms demonstrate that God's proxy (Jesus) has come to do battle with Satan's proxies (the demons) and Jesus is soundly defeating the forces of Satan, which is a preview of the main event when God will completely overthrow the power of Satan on earth and set up his own direct rule over all creation.
My discussion of Ehrman, chapter 9, will be continued in an entry on the Teachings of Jesus.