One of Many?

I have on a number of occasions remarked about my respect for the biblical scholarship and work of Bart Ehrman. And, while his textbook The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction is an excellent guide to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, it also provides us with some excellent examples of how reasonable people can look at the exact same evidence and arrive at different conclusions. One such instance stood out to me when I was reading that book, and it inspired this post.

In the seventeenth chapter of Ehrman's book (The World of Jesus and His Followers), he told a story about a "remarkable" individual from the First Century. Ehrman wrote: "From the beginning, his mother knew that he would be no ordinary person. Prior to his birth, a heavenly figure appeared to her announcing that her son would not be a mere mortal but would be divine. The boy was already recognized as a spiritual authority in his youth...As an adult, he left home to engage in an itinerant preaching ministry. He went from village to town with his message of good news...He gathered around himself a number of disciples who were amazed by his teaching and his flawless character. They became convinced that he was no ordinary man but was the Son of God...At the end of his life, his enemies trumped up charges against him, and he was placed on trial before Roman authorities for crimes against the state." (Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 239)

Ehrman probably correctly assumed that most of his students would conclude that this narrative was about Jesus Christ of Nazareth. However, in dramatic fashion, the professor finally reveals that the narrative is about one Apollonius of Tyana (a pagan holy man and teacher). He went on to point out that Jesus and Apollonius weren't the only supernaturally ordained teachers/miracle workers extant in the Greco-Roman world of this period. Ehrman concluded: "Even though Jesus may be the only miracle-working Son of God that  we know about in our world, he was one of many talked about in the first century." (Ibid., p.239)

Later in the same chapter, Ehrman points out two "other Jewish miracle-working sons of God." (Ibid., p.248). Once again, the point being that these individuals were common to the Judaism of this period. The clear implication being that the claims about Jesus of Nazareth were not extraordinary and would not have excited much interest within the context of his own times.

Now, while I accept Ehrman's historical narrative about the First Century, I think that the evidence he offers in this chapter demonstrates something other than the point he was trying to make. For me, the fact that there were a great many of these messianic preachers wandering around the Roman Empire of the First Century underscores the unique nature of Jesus and his followers. Outside of scholarly circles, how many folks have heard about Apollonius, Simon of Perea, Judas the Galilean, Honi the Circle-Drawer or Hanina ben Dosa? Obviously, NONE of those other spiritual leaders of this era had anything even approaching the lasting impact that Jesus Christ had on planet earth. If Jesus was merely one of many, then how do we account for the fact that billions of humans in 2021 know his name and are familiar with his teachings? How do we account for the complete failure of the polytheistic religions of the conquerors (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome) and the absolute triumph of the God and Scriptures of a persecuted and powerless group of nomads?