Bart D. Ehrman: Christianity One Year After Jesus

Dr. Bart D. Ehrman is one of the most influential and controversial scholars of early Christianity. A professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Ehrman has spent decades studying the origins of Christianity, the historical Jesus, and how early Christian beliefs evolved. Among his many works, Ehrman has frequently explored what the earliest followers of Jesus believed—especially in the critical period immediately following Jesus’ death.

What did Christianity look like one year after Jesus died? According to Ehrman, the movement that would eventually become the world’s largest religion started as a small, fractured, and profoundly Jewish sect—filled with grief, confusion, and, above all, conviction that something divine had happened.

---

Jesus’ Death: The Crisis Point

Jesus of Nazareth, a charismatic Jewish preacher, was crucified by the Romans—likely around the year 30 CE. This event should have marked the end of his movement. In the ancient world, a crucified messiah was a contradiction in terms. Crucifixion was a public, humiliating death reserved for criminals and rebels. According to Jewish expectations at the time, the messiah was supposed to be a triumphant figure—liberating Israel, restoring the kingdom, and ushering in God’s reign.

Instead, Jesus died in disgrace.

As Bart Ehrman emphasizes in his many writings (such as How Jesus Became God and Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium), Jesus’ death left his followers shattered. For a brief moment, the Jesus movement could have disappeared entirely—just another failed messianic group. And yet, something remarkable happened: within a year, Jesus’ followers were boldly proclaiming that he had risen from the dead and that he was, in fact, the Son of God.

---

The Birth of a New Faith

So what changed?

According to Ehrman, the key moment in the formation of Christianity was the belief in the resurrection. Whether or not one accepts it as historical fact, the resurrection was the turning point for Jesus’ earliest followers. Ehrman—who is personally an agnostic but approaches the material from a historical-critical perspective—argues that at least some of Jesus' disciples came to believe they had seen him alive after his death.

This belief, Ehrman says, is what gave birth to Christianity.

Within weeks or months of the crucifixion, Jesus’ followers, still primarily based in Jerusalem, began preaching that Jesus had been raised from the dead by God. They interpreted his death not as a defeat, but as a divine plan—a necessary part of God's redemptive work. For them, the resurrection validated Jesus’ claims and transformed him from a failed prophet into a cosmic savior.

This reinterpretation of Jesus’ death was deeply Jewish in its framework. Ehrman notes that early Christians scoured the Hebrew Scriptures (what Christians now call the Old Testament) to find prophetic “proof” that the messiah had to suffer and die. Passages from Isaiah, Psalms, and Daniel were reinterpreted in this light, helping early Christians explain the seemingly paradoxical fate of their messiah.

---

A Movement Still Within Judaism

One year after Jesus’ death, Ehrman emphasizes that the Jesus movement was not yet a separate religion. It was still a Jewish sect, perhaps best described as an apocalyptic renewal movement within first-century Judaism.

Jesus’ followers—like Jesus himself—were Jews. They observed Jewish laws, attended synagogues, and participated in temple rituals. Their belief was that Jesus was the Jewish messiah, sent by the God of Israel, to fulfill Jewish prophecies. The earliest Christians were not trying to create a new religion; they were trying to reform and reinterpret their existing faith in light of what they believed had happened.

Key figures in this early period, such as Peter, James (Jesus’ brother), and John, remained in Jerusalem and served as leaders of the small community. According to the Book of Acts and other early Christian writings, they preached openly about Jesus, attracting new followers and facing resistance from some Jewish authorities.

---

The Role of Visions and Apocalyptic Expectations

According to Ehrman, visions played a central role in this early period. The apostle Paul, writing just two decades after Jesus’ death, claims that hundreds of people saw the risen Jesus, including himself. Ehrman doesn’t take these accounts as literal fact, but he argues that early Christians genuinely believed these appearances were real.

Such visionary experiences were not unusual in the ancient world, where divine visitations, dreams, and revelations were commonly accepted. For Jesus' followers, these experiences served as powerful confirmations of their faith.

Furthermore, the earliest Christians believed that they were living in the final days. Ehrman often highlights this apocalyptic mindset in early Christianity. Jesus had preached that God’s kingdom was imminent—and his followers believed that his resurrection was the first sign of this cosmic transformation. They expected Jesus to return soon, defeat evil, and fully establish God’s kingdom on earth.

This imminent expectation shaped everything they did. They preached urgently, formed tight-knit communities, and awaited Jesus’ return—days, months, or at most a few years away.

---

No New Testament Yet

One of the most important things to understand, Ehrman emphasizes, is that there was no New Testament one year after Jesus died. The gospels had not yet been written. The letters of Paul had not yet been composed. What existed were oral traditions, passed along from memory in Aramaic and Greek, and told in house churches and marketplaces.

This was a storytelling faith, dependent on eyewitness testimony, preaching, and communal worship. It would be decades before the written gospels began to emerge—starting with Mark around 70 CE. This makes the earliest period both rich and mysterious, as historians must reconstruct what early Christians believed without any direct writings from that first year.

---

Conclusion: A Faith at Its Infancy

Bart Ehrman’s work gives us a vivid window into what Christianity looked like just one year after Jesus’ death. It was a tiny, persecuted, and Jewish sect, centered around a radical claim: that a crucified man had been raised from the dead and exalted by God. This belief—so counterintuitive to ancient Jewish and Roman ideas—sparked a movement that would, over time, become Christianity.

For Ehrman, the key takeaway is not theological but historical. Whether or not one believes in the resurrection, it is undeniable that the belief in the resurrection changed the course of history. From a small group of grieving disciples emerged a global religion that would reshape civilizations, cultures, and worldviews.

In its first year, Christianity was not an empire, not a creed, not even a set of scriptures. It was a group of ordinary people, convinced that death had been defeated—and that their teacher, Jesus of Nazareth, was alive and divine.

And that, Ehrman argues, is how Christianity began.

The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity by James D. Tabor

Introduction

The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity (2006) is a book by biblical scholar James D. Tabor. Tabor is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, with long experience in the study of early Christianity, ancient Judaism, and related archaeological research. PublishersWeekly.com+3Wikipedia+3Simon & Schuster+3

In The Jesus Dynasty, Tabor offers a bold revisionist view of who Jesus was, what his mission might originally have been, the role of his family—especially his brother James—and how later Christian tradition (especially Pauline Christianity) diverged from what he claims was Jesus’ and his family’s own project. The book combines textual analysis, study of the earliest Christian documents, considerations of Jewish messianic expectations, and archaeological observations, to argue for a “dynastic” movement centered on Jesus’ family.

---

Thesis and Major Arguments

Tabor’s central thesis is that Jesus was not simply a spiritual teacher, but that he was positioned (or positioned himself) as a royal descendant of King David with messianic claims, and that his cousin John the Baptist was a priestly messiah figure. Together, they formed a two‑messiah structure (royal and priestly). PublishersWeekly.com+3Simon & Schuster+3Biblical Archaeology Society+3

A second major argument is that Jesus set up, before his death, a sort of provisional earthly “dynasty” or organizational structure: a Council of Twelve, each associated (in Tabor’s reconstruction) with one of the twelve tribes or regions of Israel, some of his own brothers among them. When John the Baptist was executed, the baton passed more fully to Jesus, and then after Jesus’ crucifixion leadership passed to his brother James. Tabor asserts that James in early Jerusalem was the actual head of the movement, rather than Peter or Paul. Simon & Schuster+2TaborBlog+2

Tabor suggests that much of later Christian doctrine—including the divinity of Jesus, the diminished role of John the Baptist, and the fading importance of Jesus’ half‑brothers—were later reinterpretations or “pollution” of what originally was more of a Jewish messianic, dynastic, family‑led movement. Paul, in particular, is argued to have retooled the message for Gentile audiences in ways that sidelined or obscured the original dynastic and Jewish character of the movement. Simon & Schuster+2Biblical Archaeology Society+2

Other provocative elements include discussion of alternative or extra‑canonical traditions (and archaeological evidence) concerning Jesus’ father, including the “Jesus Son of Pantera/Pandera” tradition, and speculation about the Talpiot Tomb and a “Tomb of the Shroud” in Jerusalem, which Tabor considers might be associated with the family of Jesus. However, Tabor does not claim these speculations are definitive; rather, he presents them as provocative possibilities worthy of further investigation. Biblical Archaeology Society+2PublishersWeekly.com+2

---

Evidence Used

To support his thesis, Tabor draws on a variety of sources:

1. Canonical Gospels, Genealogies, and Jewish Messianic Expectation
   He analyzes the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, prophetic texts, Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish apocalyptic literature, and the expectations in the first century for a Messiah from David. He uses these to argue that it was plausible for someone of Davidic lineage to assert messianic kingship. TaborBlog+3Simon & Schuster+3Biblical Archaeology Society+3

2. Non‑canonical and extra‑Biblical Traditions
   Traditions (some of which are early Christian or Jewish) about “Jesus son of Pantera” or “pandera/pantera” are discussed in relation to claims of Jesus’ paternity. Then there are apocryphal or pseudepigraphal texts, as well as later Christian traditions about John the Baptist, James, etc. PublishersWeekly.com+2Biblical Archaeology Society+2

3. Archaeology and Ossuaries
   Tabor references archaeological finds such as ossuaries (bone boxes), the Talpiot Tomb in East Talpiot (which some claimed might be a “Jesus family tomb”), ossuaries inscribed with names that match the names of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, James, etc. He also discusses a “Tomb of the Shroud” in Jerusalem’s Hinnom Valley and tries to connect names and archaeological evidence. PublishersWeekly.com+3Biblical Archaeology Society+3Simon & Schuster+3

4. Historical Context
   Tabor situates Jesus, John the Baptist, James, etc., in their Jewish, socio‑political, and Roman imperial setting: the oppression, messianic hope, hierarchical priests, Roman oversight, popular movements, revolutionary expectations etc. This is conventional but important for his arguments. PublishersWeekly.com+2Simon & Schuster+2

---

Strengths

• Ambitious Synthesis: Tabor brings together many data points—textual, archaeological, traditions—into a coherent narrative. The book stimulates thinking about what might have been suppressed, lost, or de‑emphasized in mainstream Christian history. PublishersWeekly.com+1

• Accessible Writing: While scholarly, it is written for a general audience, and includes maps, photographs, timelines, making it more approachable. Biblical Archaeology Society+1

• Challenging Assumptions: Tabor forces readers to reexamine commonly held assumptions: for example, about the dominance of Pauline theology, the downplaying of Jesus’ family in later Christian tradition, and about how messianic claims might have been understood in the first century. This kind of revisionist history can prompt useful questions. Simon & Schuster+1

• Use of Archaeological Material: The incorporation of ossuaries and tomb finds, where names correspond or nearly correspond, adds material dimension to textual arguments, even if speculative. It allows connections between artifacts and textual tradition. Biblical Archaeology Society+1

---

Criticisms & Weaknesses

• Speculative Leaps: Many of the claims are speculative. The evidence for some of the more dramatic assertions (e.g. the Talpiot Tomb being the Jesus family tomb, or Jesus setting up a provisional government with regional officials) is weak, uncertain, or contested. Tabor often acknowledges that, but critics argue he sometimes treats speculation more confidently than warranted. Biblical Archaeology Society+2Kirkus Reviews+2

• Issues with Source Reliability: Some of the traditions or artifacts used are disputed in terms of authenticity, provenance, interpretation. Ossuary inscriptions are often ambiguous (names being common, inscriptions worn, etc.). The genealogies in the Gospels are themselves complex, sometimes contradictory, and filtered through theological frames. Thus reconstructing a “dynasty” is challenging. Biblical Archaeology Society+2PublishersWeekly.com+2

• Historical vs Theological Interpretation Conflicts: Mainstream scholarship often disputes the idea that early followers of Jesus viewed the movement as a dynastic claim to power in the political sense. Many scholars see Jesus’ messianism as primarily spiritual or apocalyptic but not as the foundation for an actual political kingdom in the sense of a Davidic restoration overthrowing Roman rule. Tabor’s interpretation is more radical and sometimes conflicts with this scholarly consensus. PublishersWeekly.com+1

• Blurring of what is Known vs What is Hypothesized: Some reviewers feel Tabor sometimes doesn't sufficiently distinguish what we know with reasonable certainty vs what is inference or hypothesis. For readers not familiar with the evidential uncertainties, this can lead to overconfidence in conclusions. Biblical Archaeology Society+1

• Reception in Scholarly Circles: Some critics have praised the creativity but criticised the methods or overreach. For example, Kirkus Reviews says that while the book raises meaningful thought, Tabor sometimes “sounds like a conspiracy theorist,” and that his conclusion are accepted more as truth than as conjecture. Kirkus Reviews

---

Why This Matters

Even if much of Tabor’s reconstruction is speculative, The Jesus Dynasty has significance:

1. Historical Jesus Studies: It contributes to the ongoing effort to recover what can reasonably be known about Jesus, his intentions, his family, and his early followers—not just what later church doctrine or tradition made of him.

2. Family in Christian Tradition: The role of Jesus’ family (James, his brothers, etc.) is often less emphasized in popular Christian narratives. Tabor re‑elevates them, which has implications for understanding early Christian leadership, structure, and divergence of traditions.

3. Questioning Later Christian Orthodoxy: The book prompts reflection on how early Christian beliefs evolved, particularly under Pauline influence, and how that may have altered or suppressed other strands of belief — an area important for scholars of early Christianity, theology, and church history.

4. Interplay of Archaeology and Text: Shows how archaeological findings (even fragmentary) can raise new hypotheses about early Christianity, encouraging more work and more careful scrutiny of artifacts and traditions. It helps bridge textual scholarship and material culture.

5. Cultural and Religious Implications: For believers and non‑believers alike, works like this open possibilities to think differently about faith, history, and how religious traditions shape identity—especially when there are claims about lost/diminished leadership, revisionism, and the historical roots of doctrine.

---

Overall Assessment

The Jesus Dynasty is not a mainstream textbook of early Christian origins, but rather a provocative, imaginative, and ambitious work. It is valuable for those who want to explore alternative hypotheses about Jesus, his family, and how Christianity emerged. Readers should approach it with both openness and a critical eye: many ideas are plausible, many are less so.

Tabor's scholarship is serious and his credentials are credible; the strengths of the book lie in bringing together many disparate pieces of evidence and offering a coherent narrative. The weaknesses lie in those moments when speculative inference overshadows stronger evidence, or when hypotheses risk being presented as more solidly grounded than they are.

---

Conclusion

James D. Tabor’s The Jesus Dynasty offers a fascinating and controversial reexamination of Jesus, his family, and the birth of Christianity. It challenges conventional accounts, especially about who led the earliest Jesus movement, how theological developments (notably Paul’s influence) may have diverted or transformed original hopes and structures, and how much of what we accept as Christian tradition may have been shaped by power, memory, lost or forgotten family leadership, or simply historiographical bias.

While few scholars accept all of Tabor’s claims without reservation, the book’s value is in stimulating fresh questions, widening the lens through which to view the early Christian world, and reminding us that the historical roots of Christianity may be more complex, more human, more dynastic, and more contested than is often acknowledged.

Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity by James D. Tabor

James D. Tabor, a scholar of early Christianity and Jewish studies, explores in Paul and Jesus how the founder‐figure known to most Christians — the Apostle Paul — fundamentally shaped the faith in ways quite different from what Jesus and his earliest Jewish followers had intended or practiced. Tabor’s book is both historical reconstruction and theological reflection: it asks what Christianity might have looked like if the teachings and practice of Jesus, James (Jesus’ brother), and Peter had continued unmodified — and how Paul changed that in transmitting Christianity to Gentile audiences.

---

The Premise

Tabor begins with an observation: there is a historical gap of about two decades after the crucifixion of Jesus during which Jesus’ immediate circle (his disciples, his brother James, Peter, etc.) maintained a version of his movement that was deeply rooted in Jewish belief, practice, and expectation. However, it was Paul, converting to the movement a little later, who largely shaped the emerging Christian theology that became dominant. Labyrinth Books+3Simon & Schuster+3Pepperdine Digital Commons+3

The thesis Tabor advances is that Paul’s version of Christianity diverged in important ways from the Jerusalem church led by James and Peter. These divergences concern theology (resurrection, messiahship, identity of Jesus), practice (observance of Jewish law, ritual), and mission (how and to whom Christianity should spread). Over time, Tabor argues, Paul’s version won out, and many of the original elements faded, were modified, or became marginalized. Labyrinth Books+3Pepperdine Digital Commons+3Simon & Schuster+3

---

Key Arguments & Reconstruction

Christianity before Paul

Tabor devotes part of the book to reconstructing what Christianity looked like after Jesus’ death but before Paul’s rise. This involves looking at Jesus’ teachings, the beliefs of James’ leadership in Jerusalem, and Peter’s role. This early movement was Jewish: its members worshipped in the Temple, observed Jewish law (the Torah), saw the kingdom of God as an imminent, earthly and apocalyptic reality, expected a restored Israel, etc. The resurrection was believed in, but perhaps not in the elaborate theological framing that Paul later developed. Apple+2Pepperdine Digital Commons+2

Paul's Transformation: Theology, Christology, Mission

When Paul enters the scene, he comes from a Pharisaic/Jewish background, but he brings innovations that begin reshaping Christian belief and identity. Some of his major contributions (or transformations) Tabor discusses:

• Resurrection & Christ’s identity: Paul emphasizes Christ’s resurrection as the pivotal event, and in doing so develops an understanding of Jesus not only as a teacher or messianic figure but as one who is exalted, glorified, having a heavenly reign, the cosmic Christ. This includes for Paul a mystical union with Christ (believers participating in that resurrection, being “in Christ”). Labyrinth Books+3Apple+3Kirkus Reviews+3

• Gentile mission & separation from Jewish Law: Paul’s mission to Gentiles (non‑Jews) required him to rethink how Jewish law related to belief in Jesus. For Paul, faith in Christ replaces or transforms adherence to the Torah as the basis of one’s relationship with God. This created tensions with Jewish Christians who believed circumcision, dietary laws, and Temple worship remained important. Tabor shows that Paul had serious disagreements with Peter and James on these issues. Pepperdine Digital Commons+2Kirkus Reviews+2

• Cosmic Kingdom / Heavenly Christ: Another shift is the emphasis on a heavenly kingdom, the glorified Christ, cosmic family, eschatology (end times), etc. Paul’s attention is more transcendent, less concerned with the immediate Jewish sociopolitical restoration and more with an “already but not yet” tension. That is, Christ is exalted, but the consummation is still future for believers. Apple+2Perlego+2

• “Mystical union” & spiritual transformation: Paul introduces or emphasizes the idea that believers share in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection — that there is a spiritual transformation. The mystical, symbolic, metaphorical elements become more central. Perlego+2Apple+2

Conflict & Reinterpretation

An important part of Tabor’s story is that Paul’s teachings did not simply build on Jesus’ movement in a seamless way — there was conflict, disagreement, reinterpretation. Tabor argues that passages in Paul’s letters indicate that he saw himself in some tension with the Jerusalem church. He suggests that later Christian texts (including Acts) worked to harmonize or minimize those conflicts, sometimes reshaping historical memory in favor of Pauline theology. Kirkus Reviews+1

Tabor also examines how the Gospels (which were written later) and other New Testament writings may reflect Pauline influence, recasting or interpreting Jesus’ words in light of Paul’s theology. Thus, the Christian tradition that became normative (especially in Gentile churches) is more “Pauline Christianity” than a direct continuation of the Jesus / James / Peter movement. Apple+2Pepperdine Digital Commons+2

---

Strengths & Controversies

Tabor’s book is praised for being readable, well‑researched, and offering clarity in a field that is often tangled with theological assumptions. His use of Paul’s undisputed letters as primary sources, his insistence on exploring the Jewish context, and his reset of certain assumptions (like that Paul and the Jerusalem church were always in harmony) give the reader a fresh lens. Simon & Schuster+1

At the same time, there are controversies and criticisms:

• Some reviewers feel Tabor stretches or reads too much into certain Pauline passages; for example, claims like Paul saw himself as a “second Messiah” are provocative and not universally accepted. Kirkus Reviews

• Also, reconstructing the beliefs of the earliest Jerusalem church is inherently speculative — the sources are few and often written later, shaped by theological agendas. Tabor must infer a lot. Critics warn that this can lead to seeing what one wants in the historical fog.

• The reconciliation between the divergences Tabor points out and the later Christian orthodoxy (what becomes mainstream doctrine) is sometimes uneasy: to what extent did Paul's innovations get modified again by the later church? How much influence did Peter / James retain? Some of those lines are blurrier than Tabor might suggest.

---

Implications & Why It Matters

Why is Tabor’s account important? Several reasons:

1. Understanding Christian diversity: Tabor sheds light on how many strands of early Christianity once existed. Knowing that the movement was not monolithic helps in understanding why there are so many theological differences even among Christian traditions today.

2. Origins of doctrine: Key Christian doctrines — like the divinity of Christ, salvation by faith, resurrection, and Christian identity apart from Jewish law — did not emerge fully formed, but through debates, conflicts, reinterpretations. Tabor helps trace those roots.

3. Jewish context and continuity: By emphasizing how Jesus, James, Peter and the early followers were deeply Jewish, the book helps bridge understanding between early Christianity and Second Temple Judaism, and how Christianity both continued and diverged from its Jewish origins.

4. Reassessment of Paul’s role: For many Christians, Paul is seen as “just another apostle” or a harmonious partner to Jesus’ original disciples. Tabor’s work encourages readers to see Paul as arguably the more decisive figure in shaping what Christianity became, for better or worse (depending on perspective).

---

Personal Reflections & Open Questions

Tabor’s narrative raises many questions, which both scholars and lay readers will want to consider:

• How much of Christian faith as practiced today is “Pauline Christianity” vs. what Jesus himself taught (if that can be known)?

• If one accepts that the early Jerusalem church had a different theology or practice, what do we lose or gain in terms of Christianity’s identity?

• How does this affect theological claims about apostolic authority? For example: is Peter / James authority being underplayed historically, or has their teaching already been subsumed into a broader Pauline orthodoxy?

• How reliable are the sources (Paul’s letters, Acts, Gospels) in reconstructing distinct positions? What are their biases?

• For believers, how do these scholarly reconstructions affect faith, practice, and tradition?

---

Conclusion

Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity invites readers to reconsider what Christianity looked like in its earliest years, and how much of what is now standard Christian doctrine was shaped, or even invented, by Paul post‑Jesus. Tabor argues convincingly that Paul was not just a propagator, but a transformer — someone whose theological vision carried Christianity into new spheres (especially Gentile Christianity), but also diverged from the movement led by James, Peter, and the original Jewish followers of Jesus.

Whether one agrees with every detail, the book is valuable precisely because it forces the conflict, the complexity, and the history onto view. It helps us see Christianity less as one single unbroken line from Jesus to today, but as a dynamic movement shaped by debates, reinterpretations, and transformations. For anyone interested in Christian origins, theology, or the history of belief, Paul and Jesus is a stimulating, often provocative, and deeply worthwhile read.

Dr. Bart Ehrman Destroys the Crucifixion and Resurrection History — A Critical Look

Few scholars have sparked as much debate in the field of biblical studies as Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, a New Testament scholar, historian, and professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Known for his deep academic background and former evangelical Christian faith, Ehrman has become one of the most influential critics of traditional Christian narratives, particularly concerning the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

In a series of bestselling books and public debates, Ehrman has challenged the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts and questioned the basis for belief in the resurrection. To many secular readers and skeptics, his work “destroys” the traditional story. To others, it represents a revisionist view that oversteps the boundaries of what history can and cannot say.

Let’s explore how Ehrman critically analyzes — and, some would argue, deconstructs — the traditional accounts of Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection.

---

Ehrman’s Background: From Belief to Critique

Bart Ehrman’s journey is critical to understanding his perspective. Once a devout evangelical Christian, he attended Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, and later earned his Ph.D. at Princeton Theological Seminary. There, under the mentorship of renowned scholars like Bruce Metzger, he became an expert in textual criticism — the discipline of studying manuscript variations to reconstruct the most original biblical texts.

Over time, Ehrman’s faith evolved. Disturbed by the inconsistencies in the New Testament manuscripts and the problem of human suffering, he moved from evangelicalism to agnosticism. Today, he identifies as a secular historian who studies the Bible as a historical and literary artifact, not as divinely inspired scripture.

---

The Crucifixion: Was It As the Gospels Say?

Ehrman does not deny that Jesus was crucified. In fact, he agrees with the majority of historians that Jesus of Nazareth was executed by the Roman authorities around 30 CE under Pontius Pilate. Where he departs from traditional views is in how the crucifixion is portrayed in the Gospels — and what it actually means.

Inconsistencies in the Gospel Accounts

Ehrman points out numerous contradictions among the four Gospels regarding the events of the crucifixion:

• What did Jesus say on the cross?

  • In Mark and Matthew, he cries out in agony: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

  • In Luke, he says, “Father, forgive them” and “Into your hands I commit my spirit.”

  • In John, he declares triumphantly, “It is finished.”

Ehrman argues that these differing “last words” cannot all be historically accurate. Instead, they reflect theological agendas of the Gospel writers, not eyewitness testimony.

Theological Embellishment Over Time

Ehrman also believes that the Gospels show a progressive softening of Jesus’s suffering over time. For example:

• In Mark (the earliest Gospel), Jesus is depicted as deeply distressed and abandoned.

• In John (the latest Gospel), Jesus is composed, divine, and in control.

This evolution suggests, according to Ehrman, that the Gospel writers were shaping narratives to fit their theology, not reporting objective history.

---

The Resurrection: History or Faith?

It is on the resurrection — the cornerstone of Christian belief — that Ehrman is most skeptical.

Can Historians Verify a Miracle?

Ehrman often makes this fundamental point: Historians cannot affirm miracles because miracles are, by definition, violations of natural law and require faith, not historical methodology.

“The resurrection is a theological claim, not a historical one,” Ehrman says. “Historians can say whether people claimed to have seen Jesus. But whether he was actually raised from the dead — that is not something history can confirm.”

This doesn’t mean Ehrman is saying the resurrection didn’t happen. Rather, he argues that no historical method can verify such a supernatural event.

Paul and the Empty Tomb

Ehrman also scrutinizes Paul’s letters, the earliest Christian writings. Paul speaks of Jesus appearing to him and others, but never mentions the empty tomb — a central feature of the Gospels.

This leads Ehrman to question whether the empty tomb story was a later legend, not part of the original resurrection belief.

Additionally, Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 15 of a “spiritual body” raises questions. Was Paul imagining a bodily resurrection, or a visionary/spiritual experience? Ehrman leans toward the latter.

Discrepancies in the Resurrection Accounts

Like the crucifixion, the resurrection narratives are filled with contradictions:

• Who went to the tomb?

• Was the stone already rolled away?

• How many angels were there?

• Who saw Jesus first, and where?

Ehrman sees these inconsistencies as evidence that the stories were not based on eyewitness reports, but rather evolved over time.

---

Legendary Development and Psychological Explanations

Ehrman proposes that early followers of Jesus may have genuinely believed he had appeared to them — but that doesn’t mean it happened. He draws parallels to:

• Grief-induced visions: Common psychological phenomena where the bereaved “see” deceased loved ones.

• Apocalyptic expectation: Many Jews at the time believed in resurrection and divine vindication. The disciples may have reinterpreted Jesus’s death in light of these beliefs.

In this view, the resurrection belief could have emerged as a natural psychological and theological development, not as a historical fact.

---

Faith vs. History

Ehrman makes it clear that he is not out to attack Christianity. He respects faith but insists on a clear distinction between what historians can know and what believers can trust.

“You can believe in the resurrection. But don’t pretend it’s a historically provable fact,” he often says.

In debates with Christian apologists like William Lane Craig and Mike Licona, Ehrman remains consistent: he critiques the historical method behind resurrection arguments, not the personal faith of believers.

---

Ehrman’s Impact and Critics

Bart Ehrman’s books — including Misquoting Jesus, Jesus, Interrupted, and How Jesus Became God — have sold millions of copies and shaped the modern conversation about biblical history.

However, he has critics, even among secular scholars. Some argue that Ehrman downplays evidence supporting early Christian belief in a bodily resurrection. Others say he can be overly dismissive of oral tradition and memory.

Yet, even his detractors often acknowledge that Ehrman brings academic rigor and public accessibility to questions many prefer to avoid.

---

Final Thoughts: Does Ehrman “Destroy” the Crucifixion and Resurrection?

For traditional Christians, Bart Ehrman’s work may feel like a threat to sacred beliefs. For skeptics and seekers, he offers a liberating lens through which to explore the Bible historically rather than devotionally.

Whether or not he "destroys" the crucifixion and resurrection history depends on your perspective. From a historical-critical standpoint, Ehrman exposes serious problems with treating the Gospel narratives as literal history. From a faith-based standpoint, however, his critiques may challenge but not necessarily overturn deeply held convictions.

In the end, Ehrman invites both believers and non-believers to engage honestly with the text — to ask hard questions and to accept that sometimes, history and faith will lead us down different paths.

Bart D. Ehrman: Were the Teachings of Jesus Accepted by Paul?

Bart D. Ehrman, a prominent New Testament scholar and historian of early Christianity, has written extensively on the formation of Christian doctrine, the historical Jesus, and the apostle Paul. Among the many questions he has addressed, one particularly provocative issue stands out: Did Paul, the most influential writer of the New Testament, accept or even know the teachings of Jesus?

To many Christians, the answer might seem obvious—Paul is a central figure in the New Testament, so he must have faithfully continued Jesus’ message. But Ehrman challenges this assumption. Through careful historical and textual analysis, he raises significant doubts about whether Paul’s theology aligned with Jesus' own teachings. This article explores Ehrman’s perspective and the broader scholarly debate it engages.

Who Is Bart Ehrman?

Before delving into the topic, it's important to understand Ehrman's background. He is a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a former evangelical Christian who later became an agnostic. Ehrman is best known for books like Misquoting Jesus, Jesus, Interrupted, and How Jesus Became God. His scholarship focuses on the historical development of Christian texts and beliefs, often questioning traditional views.

Ehrman’s approach is historical-critical. He does not treat the Bible as a divinely inspired whole but as a collection of diverse writings from different authors, each with unique theological aims and historical contexts. This methodology leads him to ask tough questions—one of them being whether Paul really taught what Jesus did.

Paul’s Relationship to Jesus

Paul never met Jesus during his lifetime. His knowledge of Jesus came from visions, personal revelation, and indirect contact with Jesus’ followers, especially Peter and James. According to Ehrman, this creates an immediate tension: Paul’s message is based not on Jesus’ earthly ministry, but on what he believed was the resurrected Christ revealing truths to him.

In Galatians 1:11–12, Paul writes:

"I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

Ehrman emphasizes this passage as a cornerstone of Paul’s theology—it’s not derived from Jesus’ teachings during his lifetime, but from what Paul believed was post-resurrection communication. In fact, Paul explicitly distances himself from learning the gospel from Jesus’ original disciples.

Was Paul Interested in Jesus' Teachings?

One of the key issues Ehrman explores is whether Paul ever showed interest in the actual teachings of Jesus—the parables, the Sermon on the Mount, the emphasis on the Kingdom of God, and ethical instructions.

The evidence suggests that Paul rarely, if ever, quotes Jesus. Of the 13 letters attributed to Paul (seven of which are considered authentic by most scholars), there are only a handful of references to Jesus’ sayings. One of the most well-known appears in 1 Corinthians 7:10–11, where Paul refers to Jesus' teaching on divorce. Another is in 1 Thessalonians 4, where he speaks of Jesus’ return.

But compared to the four Gospels, Paul's letters are remarkably silent on the life and teachings of Jesus. Ehrman sees this as a major clue that Paul was not primarily interested in Jesus as a moral teacher, but rather as the crucified and risen Lord.

Paul’s focus is not on what Jesus said during his lifetime, but on what his death and resurrection meant. To Paul, Jesus was not merely a prophet or rabbi—he was the divine Son of God whose death brought salvation to the world.

A Different Gospel?

Ehrman argues that Paul's theology marks a significant departure from Jesus' own message. Jesus, in the Synoptic Gospels, primarily preaches about the coming Kingdom of God, repentance, and living a righteous life in preparation for God's imminent rule. His teachings are filled with ethical instructions: love your enemies, give to the poor, be humble, and seek God's will.

Paul, on the other hand, centers his message on justification by faith, the redemptive power of Jesus' death, and the belief in the resurrection. As Ehrman often says, Paul preached not what Jesus preached, but about Jesus himself.

In this view, Paul doesn't continue Jesus' teaching—he transforms it. He creates a theological framework that focuses on sin, grace, salvation, and faith in Christ, rather than the earthly teachings and moral imperatives Jesus emphasized.

Ehrman is not alone in this assessment. Many critical scholars agree that Paul’s gospel is a reinterpretation of Jesus' message in light of his death and resurrection. For Paul, the crucifixion is not a tragic end but a cosmic event that inaugurates a new covenant. This interpretation leads Ehrman to question whether Paul would have even recognized the Jesus of the Gospels.

Conflict with the Jerusalem Church?

Ehrman also examines the tensions between Paul and the original apostles. In Galatians 2, Paul recounts a confrontation with Peter (Cephas) in Antioch, accusing him of hypocrisy for refusing to eat with Gentiles. This suggests a theological divide: the Jerusalem apostles were more closely tied to Jewish law, while Paul argued for salvation by faith alone, independent of the Mosaic Law.

Ehrman sees this as evidence that Paul’s version of Christianity diverged sharply from that of Jesus’ earliest followers, who likely continued to observe Jewish customs and laws. Paul, by contrast, saw no need for Gentile converts to follow Jewish law—circumcision, dietary restrictions, and Sabbath observance were all unnecessary in light of Christ’s death.

This, according to Ehrman, represents not just a different application of Jesus’ message but a fundamental shift in theology.

A Radical Transformation of Jesus' Message?

In Ehrman’s analysis, Paul’s theology is less a faithful transmission of Jesus’ message and more a radical reinterpretation. Jesus spoke primarily to Jews about the imminent arrival of God's Kingdom; Paul spoke to Gentiles about salvation through faith in a resurrected Christ.

Ehrman is careful not to accuse Paul of deliberate deception. Rather, he sees Paul as a sincere believer who interpreted his visionary experiences through his own theological lens. But the result was a form of Christianity that moved away from Jesus the teacher and toward Christ the Savior.

This transformation, Ehrman argues, was crucial for the development of Christianity. Without Paul, the movement might have remained a Jewish sect. It was Paul who turned Jesus' life and death into a universal message of salvation, accessible to all people regardless of their cultural or religious background.

Conclusion

Bart Ehrman’s exploration of whether Paul accepted the teachings of Jesus forces us to reconsider one of Christianity’s foundational assumptions. If Paul preached a message that diverged from or even contradicted Jesus’ own teachings, then much of what we think of as “Christianity” may be more Pauline than it is Jesus-based.

Ehrman's scholarship doesn't seek to discredit Christianity, but to understand how it developed historically. His conclusion is sobering: Paul did not so much preserve Jesus’ teachings as transform them into something new—a religion centered not on the Kingdom of God, but on the crucified Christ.

For those seeking to understand the roots of the Christian faith, this distinction is crucial. It raises challenging but important questions about authority, tradition, and the evolution of religious ideas. In Ehrman’s view, to understand Christianity, we must understand Paul—not just as a messenger, but as a founder in his own right.

When Did Christianity Separate Itself from Judaism?

The separation of Christianity from Judaism is one of the most significant developments in religious history, reshaping the spiritual, social, and political landscape of the ancient world and laying the foundation for what would become the world’s largest religion. But pinpointing exactly when Christianity separated from Judaism is complex. Rather than a single event, the separation was a gradual process that unfolded over several decades—arguably centuries—through theological disagreements, social divisions, and political pressures.

Shared Beginnings

Christianity began in the first century CE as a Jewish movement centered around Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was born a Jew, lived as a Jew, and taught Jewish audiences. His earliest followers were also Jews who believed he was the long-awaited Messiah foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures (what Christians later called the Old Testament).

In the decades following Jesus’ death (around 30–33 CE), his followers, led by figures like Peter, James, and later Paul, continued to participate in Jewish religious life—attending synagogue, observing Jewish law, and celebrating Jewish festivals. They did not initially see themselves as forming a new religion but rather as reformers within Judaism who believed that the Messiah had come.

The Role of Paul

A key figure in the evolution of Christianity from a Jewish sect to a distinct faith was the Apostle Paul. Originally a Jewish Pharisee who persecuted Christians, Paul converted after a dramatic encounter with the risen Christ and became one of Christianity’s most influential missionaries and theologians.

Paul’s missionary efforts focused on Gentiles (non-Jews), arguing that they could become followers of Jesus without adopting the full requirements of the Jewish Law—particularly circumcision and dietary restrictions. This position was controversial. Some early Jewish Christians believed that Gentiles must convert to Judaism before joining the Jesus movement. The disagreement led to what is sometimes called the Council of Jerusalem (circa 49 CE), where church leaders agreed that Gentiles could become Christians without becoming Jews.

This decision marked an important early step in the divergence of Christianity from Judaism. It meant that Christianity was not bound to Jewish identity and could become a universal religion.

Emerging Theological Differences

As Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, it began to develop theological beliefs that further distinguished it from Judaism. Key among these were:

• The divinity of Jesus: While Judaism awaited a human Messiah, Christians increasingly saw Jesus not just as Messiah but as divine—“God made flesh.”

• The Trinity: Christians developed the doctrine of the Trinity—one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This was incompatible with Jewish monotheism.

• A new covenant: Christians believed Jesus had instituted a "new covenant" that fulfilled and, in some interpretations, replaced the Mosaic covenant given to the Jewish people.

By the end of the first century, Christian writings such as the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Hebrews began to reflect a more defined identity, emphasizing theological differences and at times portraying “the Jews” in polemical terms.

The Destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE)

A pivotal moment in Jewish-Christian relations was the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE, during the First Jewish-Roman War. This catastrophe led to a massive restructuring of Jewish religious life. With the Temple gone, Rabbinic Judaism emerged as the dominant form of Judaism, centered on Torah study and synagogue worship rather than sacrifices.

At this time, the Jesus movement, increasingly composed of Gentiles, continued to evolve in its own direction. The Temple’s destruction did not devastate Christianity in the same way it did Judaism, which furthered the divergence between the two communities.

The "Parting of the Ways"

Scholars refer to the gradual process of separation as the “Parting of the Ways”—not a single event, but a series of developments over the first few centuries CE that resulted in Judaism and Christianity becoming distinct religions.

Key signs of the growing divide include:

• Exclusion from synagogues: By the late first century or early second century, Jewish Christians were increasingly excluded from synagogues. Some scholars point to the Birkat HaMinim, a Jewish prayer against heretics (possibly including Christians), as evidence of formal separation.

• Christian self-definition: Early Christian texts began to define themselves in contrast to Judaism. For example, the Gospel of John (written around 90–100 CE) presents sharp distinctions between Jesus’ followers and "the Jews."

• Roman perceptions: Initially, Roman authorities saw Christians as a Jewish sect and thus extended to them the legal protections Judaism enjoyed. However, by the early second century, Roman writers like Pliny the Younger and Tacitus began to refer to Christians as a distinct group. This shift in Roman perception helped crystallize Christianity’s separate identity.

Persecutions and Political Pressures

The growing identity of Christianity as a separate religion also came with persecution. Christians were periodically targeted by Roman authorities for refusing to worship the emperor or participate in Roman religious rites. Judaism, while often looked upon with suspicion, was an ancient and recognized religion under Roman law. Christianity, on the other hand, was seen as a new and potentially subversive movement.

This forced early Christians to further clarify and defend their beliefs, often by distancing themselves from Judaism in both theology and public identity.

Constantine and the Triumph of Christianity

A major turning point came in the early 4th century when Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and, through the Edict of Milan (313 CE), granted it legal status in the Roman Empire. By the end of the century, under Theodosius I, Christianity became the empire’s official religion.

This shift from a persecuted minority to a state-supported majority further widened the gulf between Christians and Jews. The Christian church, now allied with imperial power, began to develop laws and rhetoric that marginalized Judaism. Church fathers like John Chrysostom wrote virulent sermons against Jews, and some Christian communities prohibited intermarriage, attendance at synagogues, and Jewish-Christian cooperation.

By the Fifth Century: A Clear Separation

By the fifth century CE, Christianity and Judaism were fully distinct religions with separate scriptures, rituals, and social identities. Christianity had developed its own canon of sacred texts (the New Testament), its own clergy, and a well-established theological system centered on Jesus as the incarnate Son of God.

Judaism, under the guidance of Rabbinic leadership, had solidified its own identity, rooted in the Mishnah, Talmud, and synagogue-based worship. Each group now saw the other not just as different, but as religiously in error.

Conclusion

The separation of Christianity from Judaism was not a clean break but a slow and complex evolution. It involved theological disagreements, cultural adaptations, political changes, and social tensions. While the Jesus movement began entirely within Judaism, by the early centuries of the Common Era, it had become a new and distinct faith with its own beliefs, institutions, and identity.

Understanding this separation helps explain not only the origins of Christianity and Judaism as we know them today but also the historical tensions that have shaped Jewish-Christian relations throughout history. It remains a deeply significant chapter in the story of world religion and human culture.