Two Bart Ehrman Books: Re-Read/First Read

I re-read Bart Ehrman's (I like several of his books and appreciate his writing style and overall point of view) book on Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene.  The book overall is interesting, if lacking in some details. I think at least some of this should have been included.

For instance, we get very little of what Peter himself might have believed and preached.  This would require some supposition, especially since Acts are made up of mythical material and "speeches" of the Greek historian sort that are what he "should have" said given the message of the author.  The letters also are not likely his though some think maybe the first one is somehow connected to him.  We do have a few references by Paul.

I don't know how firmly he reached that point by the time he wrote the book (about 15 years ago), but Ehrman now thinks Jesus probably died on the cross, was left to rot there, and then tossed on a pile of bodies. Like a common Roman crucified criminal.  

So, Peter (and Mary Magdalene, one assumes) saw (as Paul says too) a vision of some sort.  The other stuff is a mix of symbolism and myth.  Paul (who the book fails to note or at least emphasize, met Peter around three years after the crucifixion, which is notable) does at one point summarize Christian belief that Jesus was "buried" (which BE thinks is fiction though again maybe he wasn't convinced then?) and somehow (though Paul speaks of "appearances" for which his was last) "rose on the third day." 

Whatever that means.  "Three," for instance, is symbolic.  The three days that Jonah was in the whale come to mind and are cited as a foreshadowing of Jesus.  So, Peter had a visionary experience and was convinced Jesus rose from the dead.  He would have used to remember and interpret Jesus' teachings [with Ehrman has discussed repeatedly, so this is basically known].  And, Paul suggests he in some fashion did engage with Gentiles.

What would his ministry have entailed?  Again, we don't have much to go on.  Paul said he focused on Jews, while Paul handled the Gentiles.  His wife (is Peter's mother-in-law in the gospels the mother of this one? who knows -- Peter could have remarried) is referenced by Paul.  Jesus told his disciples to leave their families.  Did time soften things there?  Or something? 

Ehrman notes that Peter seemed to focus his ministry on a limited general area.  He didn't go on long missionary journeys in the way Paul did. He did (for some reason) eventually supposedly pop up in Rome.  And, died in the mid-60s.  So, somehow, he spent around thirty years after Jesus died.  Jesus suggested the end was really near.  Did Peter wonder after a while?  

(Jesus said to rely on God and followers to provide basic necessities too. Paul emphasized he was self-sufficient.  Who knows what Peter did, though I bet -- even the end of John suggests they went fishing -- he fished some during those decades. Why wouldn't he?)  

We do get more about Paul, though I don't recall the mention of him going to "Arabia" (my Catholic Bible has helpful extended notes -- if not a map! -- and suggests this is not Saudi Arabia!) for three years after his conversion.  What did he do then?  I figure (though Ehrman does not address it) Paul contemplated things, including how his new vision of things changed how he should approach the Hebrew Scriptures.  

The thing that annoyed me about the Mary Magdalene chapter is that we do not get a basic discussion of exorcism. Jesus as an exorcist is deemed by scholars to be one of the most likely things that are historical.  Yes, we are told about the belief of evil demons controlling the world temporarily.  But, exorcism is something we have studied about.  There is a general idea of the psychological and even physical process.  We even get a shade of certain rituals (like mud in the eye) Jesus used to commit miracles. Why not talk about this a tad?

One of the few things the gospels tell us about her is that she had seven demons (symbolic number) driven out of her.  Also, again, like Peter, Ehrman really doesn't think she saw Jesus at the tomb, physically at least. So, what might have happened? He had an interesting discussion about gender norms at the time and how Jesus' teachings might have appealed to women.  Why not address this sort of thing? 

(I recall Ehrman and maybe others arguing that historians cannot address miraculous events.  They are supernatural claims.  No.  When it is let's say some Native American tribe or something, sociologists or historians can discuss the matter.  Why not here?  People at the time (some even today) believed in miracles.  Something "happened."  We can discuss it.)

The book still was interesting, as I said, and a major theme is what others believed happened.  These beliefs (such as gnostic accounts in the second and third centuries) are helpful to show the understanding of later Christians.  But, that is not all he did, and I am somewhat disappointed some things were left out.  This is not just a space issue.

==

I also read his latest book, Armageddon: What the Bible Really Says About the End.  The book (shorter than some of his later books; a book about heaven and the afterlife was written in a style that I found hard to read, and couldn't get through it) overall was interesting.  The book was a little over 200 pages, and I think it might have worked even shorter.  

The book is primarily about the final book of the Bible (he is not a big fan, it is a cruel book that also pines for wealth, both not very Jesus-y) though we also get some discussion of Daniel and (in a somewhat too brief form; not sure why he didn't do more to examine the text) the gospels. We do not really get an understanding of other New Testament accounts, including Paul.  On that front, the book seems to be a bit too short.  

His comparison of Jesus' message seems a tad too rosy.  He suggests Jesus had a message that taught how to live a good life, not tied to a certain class of people.  It is my understanding, however, that it is assumed he personally focused his message on Jews.  He also spoke about "the Law" and other things that presupposes a Jewish audience.  He also, of course, believed the end was near.  Jesus put forth a rather unpleasant vision (if not the torture fest of Revelation) of the end days.  

And, how about Paul?  Well, we simply do not get a summary of his own views of the end days here.  The first book does suggest Paul was rather negative about those who do not accept Christ as their savior.  He can be rather critical of those who disagree with him.  Again, not as cruel as the John of Revelation (who is likely not "John" the evangelist).  

Bart Ehrman seems to exaggerate a bit too much when contrasting Christianity and the Greek/Roman world's vision of helping the unfortunate. This is even suggested (though it does provide a not-rosy view) by an article he specifically cites as a good summary. 

Anyway, again, I liked the book overall, and it is a helpful summary of Revelation.  The book makes no mention of it, but Elaine Pagels also has a book about the same general topic.  I don't recall the book and it would be interesting to determine how much they agree with each other.  From that summary, she seems a bit less negative about the whole thing.