Skip to main content

A Thought from Bart D. Ehrman

Image result for traveling show

Professor Ehrman teaches Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He is the author of MISQUOTING JESUS and HOW JESUS BECAME GOD, both NY Times best sellers.

Ehrman's most recent book is THE TRIUMPH OF CHRISTIANITY, which discusses the long period in Christianity's history between the conversion of Paul (some time before AD 36) and the conversion of the Emperor Constantine in AD 312.

Here are two brief  paragraphs from Ehrman's discussion of Paul's post-conversion missionary activity.

   It is difficult to know for certain how Paul conducted his mission on the ground. He was moving to cities that, so far as we can tell, he had never visited before, and trying to convert strangers to the faith. He apparently succeeded a good deal. But how did he do it?

    We should not think that Paul staged 'tent revivals' like a traveling American evangelist in the nineteenth or twentieth century. There is no reference to any such undertaking in his letters or even in the Acts. The public speeches in Acts are almost always occasioned by a random and fortuitous event, sch as a public miracle. They are not organized in advance.

-----------------

So it wasn't like Elmer Gantry. Moreover, Ehrman believes (and this speculation is new to me) that Paul had a quotidian 'day job.' Along with the tent revivalist image we have to abandon the idea that Paul supported himself by passing a hat around after sermonizing, that the preaching itself WAS his job. In this context, one thinks of the first letter to the Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse 9. Paul reminds his converts in that verse, "you remember ... we labored so as not to burden you." What was the day job?

Acts 18:3 describes Paul as a "tentmaker." So he didn't travel with a tent, like Gantry, but he did make tents? Ehrman suggests the term had a broader significance. Tents were made from leather, as were a lot of other things. If Paul were skilled in leather goods work, he could have set himself up in a repair shop in any new city at which he arrived.  His shop would then also double as a base of operations for his proselytizing in that city.

Fascinating line of speculation, though I still like the first-century traveling salvation-show imagery I'm here being instructed to reject.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more