(20 votes, average: 4.90 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous posts on how we got the canon of the New Testament I’ve discussed several books allegedly written by Peter – one that got into the New Testament (2 Peter); one that came close to getting in (the Apocalypse of Peter – the one that gives Peter’s first-hand description of heaven and hell; NOT the “Coptic” Gnostic one that I discussed last week in two posts); one that was thought by some proto-orthodox Christians (but maybe not many) as having a rightful place (the Gospel of Peter); and one that really never had much of a chance (Peter’s letter to James).
I can now set forth an overview of what I plan to cover in my book on the canon – when I eventually write it — and the conclusions I will draw under a series of interrelated rubrics. These can be imagined as chapter divisions, to come after an introduction that explains the importance of the question of how we got the canon, how it has become such a pressing question for lay readers over the past two or three decades, and some of the surprising issues involved concerning the rather serendipitous historical, cultural, and religious reasons we even have a canon, how it was decided, by whom, and when. The chapters will build a full case for what we now know about the process and its outcome.
The Original Christian Canon of Scripture.
As devoted Jews, Jesus and his followers were already committed to the Hebrew Bible as a canon of Scripture – which is to say, Christianity was born with a canon. Contrary to what is commonly thought, the canon of the Hebrew Bible was
This post gives some information widely agreed on by scholars but scarcely thought about by readers at large. Join the blog and you’ll see! <a href=”/register/”>Click here for membership options </a>
An interesting topic, thanks !
Interesting that even though they pared the books down to the “orthodox” ones we still see a wide diversity of beliefs in Christendom. Why do you think none of the early books included a straightforward description of Christian theology: who was Jesus, what did his death and resurrection mean, the Lord’s Supper, baptism, morality, etc.? Romans is the closest to that, and it leaves out a lot and doesn’t resolve much of what Paul tried to address.
My sense is that they had no one they needed to write that to.
Bart,
This should be a great book! I am looking forward to it.
One of the other angles for the questions you listed would be WHY and WHEN those questions became important. The writing of Paul and the Gospel of Mark did not care about, or anticipate, many of those questions, but Matthew’s largely jewish community must have needed some specific ‘apologetics’ to convince them of the messiah-ness (my new word of the week) of Jesus. The other gospels and early christian writings would likely also try to resolve regional/cultural questions that the authors encountered that might hamper conversions.
Do you expect to spend much effort on the ‘evolution’ of the questions and their need for answers or do you intend to focus more on the administrative decision-making people and processes for building up to our current canon?
Yes, I’ll be dealing with why the questions arose and evolved and especially on lots of the debates and what they entailed.
I suggest that another motivating factor was the fear that getting even the details wrong would condemn one to hell. What we see in the canonical books of the NT is not just a laying out of orthodox doctrine, but stringent condemnations of any alternative views. There is a kind of magic element here: if you believe in Jesus, but not in the approved version, you’ll still end up in hell for all eternity. This is not something I find in Second Temple Judaism (outside of the Essenes), but there are parallels in some of the Roman cults if I recall correctly.
As a muslim I concur this would be a hell of a motivation for me so to speak.
Seems like this post didn’t publish correctly – it breaks off in the middle of a sentence and seems shorter than expected.
That usually happens when someone has a membership renewal issue (or needs to refresh their browser). Click on Help and ask Support, and somoene will help you out with it.
Bart, do you have a scholarly book where you explicitly state that in all 4 gospels Jesus is presented as a divine being?
In my book How Jesus Became God I explain that all the Gospels think of Jesus as divine in *some sense* (not always the same sense, and not in the sense most Christians today think)
Although it’s tangential to your canon topic, your second and third points above sparked a question for me I’ve never seen addressed anywhere.
In the Torah, the Israelites are told that the Canaanites are deserving of conquest and even annihilation because they practiced human sacrifice in worshipping their false gods. That being the case, how did the early followers of Jesus, all of whom were Jews who would know that story, rationalize God’s inconsistency in arranging just such a human sacrifice, with Jesus as the victim?
It seems to me that should really have bothered them, especially considering that in all the prior history of the Jewish sacrificial cult, sacrifices were technically never expiatory atonement in themselves, but a sequel and seal to the atonement achieved by the repentance of their donors prior to coming to the Temple.
I think its because he was a willing victim who did it for the good of others.
Do you think that there is a relationship between monotheistic religion and the need to create a biblical canon? If so what is the relationship?
I definitely think so in a sense. Monotheistic religions tend to be exclusivistic, either in how they themselves will worship (Judaism) or in how all people should (Christianity and Islam). Polytheistic religions never think that way. But if there is one ultimate truth, you need some firm authorities for it. Hence a set of written texts.
Can Hinduism be considered an exception to how polytheistic religions behave?
As you know “Hinduism” is itself a complex affair, not a monolith. So I guess it would depend what you mean.
Generally speaking, there are certain scriptures that virtually all Hindus recognize as authoritative, especially the Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita. You could say that those are firmly in the Hindu canon. (Arguably, you could classify the Ramayana and Mahabharata as scriptures, but those are not necessarily scriptures in the sense of people looking to them to instructions for how to live their life today).
Beyond those texts, though, there is a vast universe of Hindu religious books, and not a lot of debate about which ones are “canonical.” Deciding which books are in and which are out is just not something that has been fought over all that much in Hinduism–strange as that might sound to someone raised in an Abrahamic faith. To Hindus, if you tell them that it’s necessary to decide once and for all which scriptures are in and which ones are out, they might advise you to just pick a scripture, any scripture, and follow it. If you find that doing so is improving your life, keep following that one. If it’s making your life worse, try a different one.
Perhaps another interesting question would be: given that second-temple era Judaism had the oral law (eventually written down in the Talmud), why didn’t Christianity *also* develop such a tradition in the decades and centuries after the New Testament was written? While Christianity eventually decided that it’s adherents need not follow the laws of the Torah (a statement that seems to contrast with Jesus’ words quoted in one of the gospels about who would be called the least in the kingdom of heaven), couldn’t Christianity have produced an authoritative New Testament commentary in book form ?
I’d say they did — and that is the basis of much of what developed in the later tradition (as Roman Catholics have always celebrated and Protestants rejected). But of course it worked differently in the Christian tradition from the Jewish.
I have a layman’s theory. The real/historical Jesus preached his own form of Judaism. Perhaps it was intended for a non Jewish audience, perhaps not. He had great charisma for the few followers he had so when he died, they decided to continue his preaching and spread it around the region to non Jews. They therefore had to come up with a doctrine that would significantly distinguish them from the existing Jewish power structure. When they began preaching outside Judea to non Jews, this simple human preacher seemed a bit non charismatic to Pagans who were much more familiar with mythological figures who acted like divine entities. This necessitated the development of a divinity cult for Jesus. The issues with obedience to traditional Jewish law had to be de emphasized because of its rigidity and strangeness to non Jews (Dear Pagan, you can believe all these wonders of Jesus but you also must undergo circumcision? That must have been a real downer to the Pagans.)
So over the centuries, you now have a Jewish-like divinity cult built around Jesus with a separate doctrine requiring a separate cannon. It sounds reasonable to me??
Yup, there’s a lot to be said for that. I think it can be shown, though, that even the earliest Jewish followers though of Jesus as divine after the resurrection. I talk about why in my book How Jesus Became God.
I’ve always wondered, are there any swear words in The Bible? Not by the modern sense since these words didn’t exist by then, but in their ancient context.
It kind a depends on what counts as a swear word. When Paul says in Philippians that he counts all the righteousness he had by following the Jewish law to be “refuse” now that he was a believer in Christ, it is the word for “dung” or “b-s”
Dr. Ehrman:
I am a happy new member of the blog and appreciate its mission as a vessel for charity and knowledge. The topic of this post is actually what I was hoping to find discussed on the blog so the timing could not have been better for me. I’ve been trying to educate myself on the most significant Book of the ages, but have not been able to follow some scholarly opinions related to authorship of certain New Testament texts.
I have been unsuccessful in finding materials explaining the view that the Gospel of Mark and Luke/Acts were not actually written by Mark and Luke. It seems that if they were falsely attributed at a later point, there are candidates that would have lended more authority than two non-witnesses whose significance in the church seems largely predicated on their authorship of two gospels. Perhaps we have versions of the first pages that do not attribute the gospels to them or there are contradictions in the historical/textual record regarding authorship? Clearly there would be a desire to give the canon authority but the choice of Mark and Luke puzzles me.
I’ve talked about it on the blog before at some length, but maybe the best resource is a free video I did on it recently. See https://ehrmanblog.org/did-matthew-mark-luke-and-john-write-matthew-mark-luke-and-john-free-video/
This was a knew perspective for me on interpreting Papius and Justin Martyr. However, while Papias is inaccurate, is he inaccurate such that he cites Gospels of Mark/Matthew that never existed? Or that there were two such Gospels, lost to time, and our present two were retroactively given those names? In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin refers to Peter’s memoirs containing the naming of the Boanerges, matching Papias’ claim that Mark wrote Peter’s perspective. My original impression was that Justin referred to the Memoirs of the Apostles collectively to imply more unity among them: for instance, citing all for the Magi instead of just Matthew. Similarly, Papias could be addressing the conflicts between Mark and Matthew. For instance, why is Mark shorter and a different order? According to Papius: “It’s just Mark’s memory!” This of course seems impossible to believe, but conveniently dismisses the problem of conflicts. Suddenly the differences aren’t significant, but that any of it is similar at all! How fortunate! Thus if Mark omitted things, its just because he never heard Peter mention them and thus “did nothing wrong.” I’ll give it more thought but that was my original impression of Papius’ and Justin’s goals.
I don’t know if Papias had actually seen these Gospels or simply heard about them. If he had simply heard about them, then I don’t know if they actually existed or not. (!)
From the small sample of writing we have from him, I think its almost impossible (or very unlikely) that he had ever read our version of Matthew; or if he had he doesn’t seem to view it as unquestionably authoritative (which is interesting to contemplate in and of itself). If he truly valued oral stories over written words (as he seems to say), then I imagine he was only marginally familiar with any written gospels. However, the fact that he makes a distinction between written testaments about what the disciples said and the oral transmission of what people tell him they said suggests that works attributed to the teachings of the disciples were familiar to him. It is tragic his writings are lost. It must certainly be rare, though, for rumors to start about the composition of non-existent works whose titles are then falsely attributed, but universally accepted, centuries later. Forgeries abound in antiquity, but I can’t think of any other corollary where we have an explanation for how multiple non-existent works were composed. If Papias does so with these Gospels, he deserves more credit as a pioneer in the field of credulity than he has aquired.
I’m a strong 2nd century guy. But am open to persuasion, as always. But have never bought any of the arguments so far.
Bart, you have shown how the gospels were written by individuals who were removed from the events they described by time, language and geography. The stories they transcribed had been passed down through the oral tradition over decades. (Today, if called to testify, these authors would not be considered competent witnesses, as they had no personal knowledge of the events they describe – the stories they tell are all hearsay. And the authors claim to be people they are not – so we’re working with hearsay within a forgery, from an evidentiary perspective.)
What, if anything, did the proto-orthodox church leaders elevating these texts know about their authorship and authenticity?
The proto-orthodox believed that the (NT) Gospels were written by apostolic authorities, two apostles (Matthew and John) and two companionsof th eapostles (Mark and Luke). These became the traditional views, and were normally simply accepted (then as now) because it’s what everyone said. Thefirst instance of anyone on record actually *saying* it, though, is Irenaeus, around 185 CE. There are debates about how much earlier someone started this view, but it does not appear to go back to the authors themselves.
A minister friend of mine was trying to persuade me that there was – at least at one point – an established canon (of ideas) to the Christian faith tradition, agreed and certified by the early church fathers. Essentially one right answer for each of the questions you list here.
He was suggesting I find this as a foundation for my crumbled faith; also said there ‘has always been a canon within the canon’ when it comes to the scriptures.
I may be jumping the gun with this question, but do you believe there was a moment or period of time (a week, even!) where all central, essential beliefs & theories were universally agreed? And has since been obscured? Is that even possible for ancient cultures only dabbling in full-fledged written traditions?
I’m having a hard time unravelling just how little is truly agreed upon in today’s Christian world! And therefore how I could have been so thoroughly convinced for so long.
Our earliest Christian author is Paul, and it is striking that in his letters he is consistently attacking people with *alternative* views of important issues (whether followers of Jesus have to follow the Jewish law; whether Jesus’ resurrecction was physical or purely spiritual) and defending himself against attacks of others (that he promoted a lawless gospel; that he perverted the teachings of the apostles). I’d say that this shows that from the earliest of times there were significant disagreements. (Even in the Gospels the disciples can’t figure out what Jesus is saying a lot of the time…)
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
A bit on the lighter side concerning swear words in the bible. I must have been about 12 years old when I was reading the bible and ran across Kings 27: 18 (KJV)
27 But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?
The emissary of the Assyrian King was telling the Jewish soldiers that they should surrender lest the (apparent) blockade of the city should starve them out. I remember asking my religious teachers about this and getting a rather non committal answer: She didn’t think a little kid like that would be reading the ‘Whole’ Bible and finding stuff like that.
Ha!
I’m super excited to read your book on how we got the Biblical canon!
Separate question at the moment, though: What is Genesis 6 talking about in verses 1-4, where it says “the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.” Is that a remnant of some earlier story about divine beings making babies with mortal women, where the babies are great heroes because of their semi-divine heritage? If I’m not mistaken, such stories appear in both Greek and Indian mythology (in the Mahabharata).
Yup. You get it in the Jewish tradition in 1 Enoch, in a long riff on Genesis. But it’s about divine beings mating with mortals. (A lot of that in Greek and Roman mythology as well)
It seems to me that the earliest Christians would not have needed a canon nor a catechism since they believed that the end of the present world was only a few years away. The idea that the end of history is imminent was one issue that both Paul and the Jerusalem church agreed on. Paul’s theology was simple enough that he didn’t feel the need for a canon nor a catechism. Paul writes in 1 cor 2:2 that he really only teaches that Jesus is the messiah and that he was crucified. Establishing a canon only makes sense once the idea of an imminent apocalypse is abandoned. The formations of canons took place once the apocalypse was pushed into the indefinite future. And that seems, at least to me, to be the reason it took so long for the development of canons.
Dr. Erhman, I have *read* (listened) to many of your books on audiobook, and recall you mentioning in at least one of them the notion that people in ancient times did not really have a concept of an individual having a set of “beliefs” as we have them today. They had a focus on practice or actions, but not that there was this separate set of beliefs that could conflict with one’s actions.
That said, I cannot recall which book you were discussing this in, how badly I am misconstruing your words and concepts, and where I could learn more about this subject. It’s tangential to the post, but I have been trying to explore this idea more – especially as it applies today in western culture in which we are almost the antithesis of this concept. People can argue back and forth and have quite different “beliefs” about something – and even hating one another for their opposite viewpoint – and yet if you observe their behaviors they live the same way in practice.
I discuss it in a number of my books, for example in a chapter in Triumph of Christianity. Even better, though, you could read a book about ancient religion, for example the one by my collegue James Rives, Roman Religions. Terrifically interesting.
Thanks. I will look for that section in Triumph of Christianity – which is likely where I encountered it – and I’ll look for that book from James Rives.