(13 votes, average: 4.46 out of 5)
Loading...As I was thinking today about the need to be consistently critical with all of our sources – not just the ones we want to be critical of (this was the topic of yesterday’s post, with an ultimate view of what I want to say about Josephus as a possible witness to the practice of Jews burying their executed dead on the days of their deaths) — another anecdote occurred to me that I thought might help illustrate my point. Here it is. In the next post I will get to Josephus, I promise.
As some of you know, I have had a number of debates with evangelical Christians on the question of whether we know what the original writings of the New Testament actually said. The typical line from these evangelical Christians is that since we have so *many* surviving manuscripts of the NT, that we can be almost completely certain that we know what the authors wrote in the vast majority of cases (virtually all). My view is that we simply cannot know for sure. It’s true that we have *way* more manuscripts for the NT than for any other ancient book (without a close second). But the problem is that we do not have lots and lots of *early* manuscripts. Having thousands of manuscripts from some 800 years after the NT was originally written is, of course, extremely valuable. But it’s not really helpful if what you want to know is what the earliest form of the text was. For that we have to rely on our earliest manuscripts, and we simply don’t have very many.
In any case, I don’t need to rehearse this entire debate here, yet again. But in thinking about this need to be consistently critical of our sources of information about the past, I was reminded of an argument that is often thrown out at me in opposition to my views about the original writings of the New Testament. I have on several occasions had an opponent say to me, with a kind of triumphalistic glee, that if I don’t think that we can know for sure what the authors of the NT originally wrote, then I would have to say that we don’t know for sure what *any* ancient authors wrote: Plato, Aristotle, Euripides, Livy, Cicero, Plutarch – take your pick!
This statement is usually made as a self-evident argument, that of *course* I can’t be saying something as ludicrous as *that* — otherwise we simply can’t know what any of our ancient sources originally said.
And my response always seems to surprise my opponents. Of course
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
” If Josephus says that Jews in Judea always buried their dead on the day of their deaths (he actually, it will be important to note, does NOT say that they always did!), do we have reason to think he is right about every instance? Or about most instances? Or about many instances?”
But none of that needs to be shown. If Josephus says it then that’s an avenue for the gospel stories of the burial to be correct.
If the four gospels’ accounts of the burial are correct then Josephus and Philo are correct when they say the Jews were allowed by the Romans to practice their own laws and customs, no matter how small, and even up to burial of crucified criminals. That’s all that’s needed.
Yes, if you don’t want to examine the sources critically, there’s no need to examine them. (Philo though?)
Philo says in embassy to Gaius “But the single nation of the Jews, being excepted from these actions, was suspected by him of wishing to counteract his desires, since it was accustomed to embrace voluntary death as an entrance to immortality, for the sake of not permitting any of their national or hereditary customs to be destroyed, even if it were of the most trivial character, because, as is the case in a house, it often happens that by the removal of one small part, even those parts which appeared to be solidly established fall down, being relaxed and brought to decay by the removal of that one thing”
So he is saying the Jews of his day were willing to die rather than give up any of the laws or customs, no matter how trivial. So it must be taken he includes the custom of burying the dead before sunset.
Four biographies of Jesus say he was buried. Are they right? They are right if Josephus and Philo are right.
brenmc thinks that isaiah 53 predicted the injustices done to jesus and at same time he thinks the jews would be robotically inclined to their burial tradition. i dont get that.
But I’m not the one claiming Jesus was buried. There are four contemporary biographies and Paul who claim it. I’m saying there’s no compelling evidence to doubt those claims.
Hi Bart am a big fan of your work (even if I’m a Christian) this question isn’t directly related to the blog post but know you’ve said in the past Historians can’t look at the ressurection Historically because that would involve a preconcieved view that God exsists which is doing theology not History but what if there is good reason to believe God exsists like the argument from contingency provided does that not then at least give Historians a reason to at least investigate the possibility of alleged miracles such as the ressurection?
As historians we should examine *every* story that indicates something happened in the past, and render a decision of whether it is the most probably explanation of what happened. I do think we can discuss the resurrection as a possible historical event. But when we do so critically, it is not the best explanation of what happened. (If, for example, someone wrote a book that argued that Elvis himself actually did reappear five years after his alleged death, then it would be worth examining to see if it was true or at least hte most likely explanation of someone saying they saw him).
Another reason we don’t hear about the disputes over Plato or Homer is that there isn’t the same emotional attachment to them as there is to the Bible. No one need fear going to hell because they followed the wrong reading of the Phaedo.
According to the Phaedo, you’d be punished after death for other reasons!
The other thing is there simply wasn’t the level of motivation to fabricate over these other texts as there was over Biblical texts.
Excellent!
I don’t understand this sentence
“If Josephus says that Jews in Judea always buried their dead on the day of their deaths (he actually, it will be important to note, does NOT say that they always did!)”
Does Josephus say that the Jews *always* buried their dead on the day of their death or doesn’t he? Or in other words, what does Josephus say?
Ah, it’s a teaser. You’ll in the post on Josephus yet to come! (But, in anticipation: no, he doesn’t say they always did)
Your position is well taken. I will compare it to another of your comments regarding those who are most likely the earliest critical reviewers of the earliest gospel manuscripts, i.e. the authors of Matthew, Luke and John – whoever they really are. I forget the topic of your exact post but, you correctly point out that if the authors of Mark wrote a completely accurate account, then the authors of Matthew would not have changed some parts of Mark and added other parts. The authors of Luke would not have stated in Luke 1: 1-4 that they wanted Theophilus to know the truth, i.e. “…the certainty of the things you have been taught.” Nor would they have changed parts of Mark to accomplish this goal. The authors of John would not have needed to alter chronology, emphasis and theological perspectives.
Yes, I think you are absolutely correct to identify that the very first historical-critical manuscripts of the first gospel Mark, are the subsequent gospels.
I think in general from all manuscripts we have we got close to truth of what those manuscripts represent, but not the original truth of oral stories, we literally have know way to know what the original oral stories was, it’s hard to imagine that those stories didn’t evolve over the years with peoples bias, I think it’s a bad argument to compare what Plato, Aristotle, Euripides, Livy, Cicero, Plutarch, originally said or didn’t say, knowing what really happen and what was really said in the NT is far more important to humanity. I believe we need hardest critical perspective of NT possible, it’s way more important than any other books in history. let’s say Jesus isn’t the son of god, didn’t come from heaven then billions of people have blindly followed a false prophet and could end up being punished by the true god if the NT text is wrong.
See Richard Carrier’s “Jesus From Outer Space” and “On the Historicity of Jesus” for very critical analysis. Much enlightening information, even if his overall conclusion is not accepted. Example: I did not realize people then thought the realm between earth and the moon was the realm where gods resided, transported down to earth and up again. Certainly, they did not view the physical solar system or universe as we do.
Also, see Elaine Pagel’s “The Gnostic Gospels”. Elaine is an original translator of these manuscripts. She correctly provides evidence, as does Bart, that the religious authorities who ultimately won the documentation battles actively suppressed writings and teaching that presented alternate viewpoints. Christianity grew and morphed to what it is because of these early battles and the eventual outcome suppressing alternate views and strengthening the “universal”, i.e. catholic viewpoint.
Oh, Elaine has also written an excellent treatment of “Revelation”, which similar to Bart’s, presents a historical explanation of the symbolism, rather than the contorted explanations within mainstream evangelical commentaries.
I’d say that Elaine’s book and mine have very little in common — the are interested in exploring very different things.
I’d say that Elaine’s book and mine have very little in common — the are interested in exploring very different things.
I know I appear to weigh about 250. I believe I weigh 190 because that’s what it says on my driver’s license.
It is written!
Hey infallible is infallible!
Off topic question, please, Dr Ehrman. In a Bible discussion group I attend, there was some disagreement over Matt 16:18. This passage is important to the RC Church as it underpins their spiritual authority (several group members are Catholic). The question was, would Jesus have actually used the word ‘Church’ (ecclesia) and, if not, what word would he have used?
Many thanks
It’s long been a much debated verse in the controversies between Protestants and Catholics; one of my beloved professors at Princeton Seminary, Karlfried Froelich, wrote his dissertation on it (in Germany)! The common view among critical scholars today (including many fine Catholic scholars) is that Jesus would not have referred to the future “church” during his pulic ministry.
Hi Bart was wondering what your views were regarding the disciples having motive to steal Jesus’ body. As I know you don’t believe the ressurection took place so will most likely think this is a more plausible option considering it happens more (apologies if I’ve slightly misquoted your views there.) But would you agree that a more naturalistic explanation like a hallucination must surely be the case considering the disciples would have to sneak past a roman guard and roll a huge stone over without them noticing steal Jesus’ body and then keep this lie to themselves up until their eventual martyrdoms (or at least the martyrdoms such as Paul and James that we actually have attested evidence for.) When they didn’t seem to be gaining anything from this lie up until the conversion of Constantine years later?
Well, most any explanatoin that doesn’t involve a violation of the laws of physics would pretty much by definition be more probably than one that does, since in the history of the universe laws of physics (think the laws of thermodynamics) have never been broken. But it does seem to me that the disciples stealing the body is one of the least likely of naturalistic explanatoins. For one thing, it assumes there was a known tomb. For another, even more important, the disciples almost certainly fled the scene and returned right away for home (Galilee) as suggested by both Matthew and mark. (The idea of their being a stone for the tomb and a guard is simply part of the Xn legend)
“We would be pleased if just two points were taken from our words. First, do not be deceived into believing, as others do, that chronology [always] can be precisely determined. Second, despite this, to the extent that it is possible, use clarity to recognize the nature of the investigation which confronts you, and then proceed resolutely.”
I was reminded, from Eusebius comment as a historian in Chronicon (Bedrosian translation).
Okay what am I missing.
Even if you concede that the text they have in their particular version of the Bible was the “original text” how does that necessarily support any historical or theological argument they make?
Anecdotally, it reminds of Steve Martin’s routine about his interview with People magazine. “When the interview came out, I was deeply shocked because it was filled with lies and made up facts. They should have told me ahead of time they did not want me to lie or make up facts.”
Yup, it’s a key point. Knowing what a person said with a high level of accuracy (whether a biblical author or an american politician) has no bearing on whether what they say is right or not.
At least in my mind, scholarship rooted in a belief system seems to (often) lean towards apologetics, probably because some seems to become (more or less) fixated on the underlying premise.
I would say that I’ve seen some/many seemingly competent scholars turn into mere proponents of their own beliefs, I’m sure you find a lot of htem within the Abramic beleif systems.
I think you have stated that all of the New Testament initially came to us in Greek, but that we do not have the originals. How can we be confident that none of it came originally in Aramaic or Hebrew?
There are linguistic/philological reasons for thinking each of these books is an original Greek composition and not a translation from a Semitic original (unlike, say, the Septuagint, which shows evidence of being “translation Greek”)
I had a NT course at a Catholic college in 1965-66, that was a long time ago, but I seem to remember mention of an “Aramaic Matthew”. I forget whether the professor was saying that the Gospel of Matthew was a translation, a work based on a pre-existing Aramaic document or was debunking an “Aramaic Matthew” theory.
However, in the intervening 57 years, I never again heard or read the words “Aramaic Matthew”.
What was the story of that theory.
At one time it was thought that the Gospels, especially Matthew, may have been written originally in Aramaic. It’s a view that goes way back into the early centuries of Christian. Today linguists who work in Greek and Aramaic are widely convinced that Matthew was an original Greek composition. And even for non-linguists there’s some good evidence. One is that Matthew is word for word the same in many passages as one of his sources, Mark, in GREEK. That couldn’t happen if it was originally written in Aramaic (he wouldn’t be borrowing Mark’s GREEK)
The gospels present very different accounts of the resurrection and the appearances of Jesus to his disciples. Luke tries to clear things a bit by stating: “I too decided to write an orderly account … so that you may know the certainty of the things …” － nice try but not much of a criticism of the other accounts.
Are there any stronger criticisms of the contradictory accounts during the early centuries? Did anyone dare question the “OFFICIAL CANON”?
Any comments on the various accounts generally worked at reconciling them.