(12 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5)
Loading...As I indicated in my previous post, I’m planning to write a book (after the one on charity in early Christianity) explaining how we got the canon of the New Testament. Who choose the books? On what grounds? And when?
I continue the thoughts I’m laying out in my prospectus here, in the first of four case studies – a book that almost made it in.
******************************
Four Vignettes to Explain the Issues
To illustrate some of the major issues, to show how the process worked, to give a sense of the historical disputes, and to show their inherent interest, I here provide four vignettes, all involving books that explicitly claim to be written by the apostle Peter. Peter is Jesus’ closest disciple and confident in the Gospels. No one could carry more authority for explaining Jesus’ teachings and his plans for his followers after his death. It comes as no surprise, then, to find a number of early Christian books that claim to be written by Peter. Two of them are in the New Testament (1 and 2 Peter); but the others were also considered bona fide writings of Scripture by one ancient Christian group or another at one time or another. Why were they not included as well?
The Apocalypse of Peter: A Book That Nearly Made It
In 1887 a French archaeological team digging in an ancient cemetery in Akhmim Egypt, about eighty miles north of Luxor, made a remarkable manuscript discovery. In one of the tombs, taken to be that of a Christian monk, they discovered a sixty-six page book, written in Greek and containing an anthology of four ancient texts. One of these described a guided tour of heaven and hell
This post is about one of the truly amazing but now little-known books from early Christianity. Join the blog and you can learn more! Click here for membership options
The doctrine was dictated by scripture dictated by doctrine.
I see why this is a problem.
Bart,
The ancient use and evolution of the word “saint” is puzzling to me. As far as I know, there was no such thing as a jewish “saint” — they were typically simply called “holy ones”. In Matthew 27:52, I see the use of “saints” for the deceased jewish holy ones, even though the greek text does not seem to support that word. This insertion of “christian” words and titles into the still “jewish” part of history is a problem IMHO. Peter would certainly not have used the word “saint” in his apocalypse. It would seem to be best to keep non-jewish words and concepts out of the still jewish period of early christianity unless an author/translator wanted to focus on a mainly gentile audience. Was this a topic of concern while completing the NSRV and NSRVue?
Yes, the Greek word for “saint” also means “holy one,” and so it can be translated either way.
I’m curious if in your proposed book you address, from a political standpoint, the fundamental disconnect between Christian atheists, such as yourself, and evangelically minded Christians: if Christians would recognize that the New Testament was written by flawed humans with good intentions, you might actually have a productive discussion about the wisdom in the New Testament.
I recently read your New Testament textbook in which you discuss the Pauline texts and how some of them were included in the New Testament canon because scholars believed they were written by Paul. Yet, modern scholars now recognize that many of those texts were NOT written by Paul. Reason would dictate that the New Testament canon should be revised. But when evangelical Christians, after they have planted their flag on the hill of New Testament inerrancy, declare they will die on that hill, it’s kinda hard to have that discussion.
Yes, I’d say most evangelicals are loathe to agree that there could be pseudepigrapha in the NT canon; but deciding that there are is not really a thoelogical statement, incumbent, e.g., upon atheists or forbidden for believers. The judgment has to be made on historical grounds and most of the scholarshiop on these texts is in fact undertaken by self-professed Christians.
If Jesus was part of the Trinity, he was God and knew what would happen in the future.
Why then did he preach that the end of the world was coming during the lives of his disciples? As God, he knew it wasn’t going to happen, but he preached it anyway.
How do the Xtn apologists handle this?
I think you’re asking a theological question of a historical text. Historians do not adopt theological views (Jesus was God) in order to determine what happened in the past (what did the historical Jesus actually preach). Those who *DO* adopt theological views when doing history, of course, shape their histories accordingly. And so apologists typically argue that Jesus did NOT say such things. They may claim their views on the matter are purely histoircal, but it can’t be an accident that every one of their historical views support their theology….
The arguments I hear for eternal torment punishment make no sense to me; universalism seems more compatible with an omniscient and loving god, but it robs the church of its power to intimidate. Still strange to me that otherwise nice people insist that eternal torment is fitting for someone who simply has “wrong” beliefs. Question: I know various textbooks contain apocryphal texts, but has anyone published an “almost” New Testament: books popular in the early church that almost made the cut?
I guess that would be difficult because “almost made the cut” would just be, what, four or five books? It depends on how one determines “almost.” Since we have such sparse evidence of the debates, it’s hard to know what majority views there were in one place/time or another….
Do you have any other non-canon books you wished make it into the main canon?
Is so, why?
I don’t really think about things that way, since I don’t see canon as authoritative Scripture. As a historian I’m more intersted in how it happened than in what I wish were in my Bible, if you see what I mean.
Your observation that the descriptions of paradise were “bland” puts me in mind of Dante’s Divina Commedia. Everyone reads the Inferno, but how many people ever read Paradiso? I did, and it is pretty boring. It’s much easier – and sadistically, more fun – to imagine hell than heaven.
Everyone loves inferno better!
Sounds a bit like the Talking Heads song Heaven :
“Heaven (Heaven) is a place, A place where nothing,
Nothing ever happens.”
Or better yet, the super fantastic Visions Of Johanna by Bob.
“Inside the museums, infinity goes up on trial.
Voices echo “this is what salvation must be like after a while.”
Wow.
1. Was there any group that thought a writing was too absurd to be considered canonical scripture? It seems not based on some of the writings that made it in.
2. When did it start being looked at as to whether the stated author (such as Peter in this case) had the ability to write?
3. If the person thought to be the author could not write, was the document considered to be dictated?
4. How could the idea of a document being dictated be argued against?
. 1. Definitely (the church father talk about weird passages, e.g., in Gnostic writings); 2 ONly with the modern study of ancient literacy (though Acts 4:13 says he was illiterate~); 3. No: in the ancient world dictating a writing was a way of writing it 4. For something like 1 Peter, it would require Peter to be highly trained in forms of Greek rhetoric, which in antiquity happened only for people who were highly educated in literacy (in that language). There was no other way to get it.
I’m visiting Tuscany and Rome in October…originally with you…but not to be this time….I was wondering if you could confirm….Were Peter and Paul really imprisoned at Mamertine Prison?
There’s not a piece of evidence to suggest so. I think Paul probably was in Rome; he probably was imprisoned; but there’s no way to know where. I don’t think there’s good evidence for Peter ever being in Rome.
Was it common for monks (or others) to be buried with manuscripts of books?
Not really. In this case the archaeologists simply *assumed* the person was a monk precisely because he was buried with a book and that seemed sensible. But there is nothing else to suggest it was a monk. Maybe it was a rich guy buried with his favorite book.
Not really. In this case the archaeologists simply *assumed* the person was a monk precisely because he was buried with a book and that seemed sensible. But there is nothing else to suggest it was a monk. Maybe it was a rich guy buried with his favorite book.
I knew there was a reason why I like Peter!! Damn those Christian teachers who rejected this idea. They prefer the majority in hell burning? The fear,once again, is adopted,like today. Shame on them.🙂 Prof., How was correct doctrine determined ? I hope not by votes!! Which would not determine the so called heretics,wrong ? Interesting. I would of chosen Peter’s book, it might of inspired many more to believe!!
It seems Augustine’s influence won out.
How much do you think Roman Politics played into the cannonization of the Bible? Was there a political need of a “hell” and eternal torment for the offical Religion of the Roman Empire? What got me interested in 1st Century Christianity was to see what Christianity was before corrupted by the Politics of Rome.
I don’t think the political agendas of Rome played any role in the debates about which books should be included.
Hi Bart,
Some of the details about the Apocalypse of Peter are confusing to me. For example, apart from the oldest surviving manuscript, when do you estimate that the Apocalypse of Peter was originally written? and what is its original language?
It was written in Greek, probably in teh 130s or 140s. The date is a hotly debated issue because one prominent proposal is that it had to be written around the time of teh Bar Cochba revolt in 132-35 CE; this was a very popular view for a couple of decades, but has now come under rather serious attack. But surely it was sometime in the second fourth of the second century. I have a long discussion in my book Journeys to Heaven and Hell if you’re interested.
This is fascinating, and suggests a question I have been wondering about.
We know that scribes were willing to act as editors, redactors, even authors, even late once the books they were copying were regarded as scripture. (There are of course known examples of this sort of scribal tweaking also in canonical books.)
But textual criticism generally aims to reproduce some one original exemplar that left the pen of a single author. And people working on the synoptic problem seem, generally, to work with the presumption that the critical texts we have basically reflect that autograph.
But given that the first complete texts of the gospels we have are so late, is that a valid assumption? If we allow that scribes were modifying the texts in various ways and for various reasosns, if we allow that many of those alterations may not be detectible to us with the mss we have, wouldn’t that lead us to think perhaps the synoptic problem is fundamentally insoluble? And equally that text criticism is really reconstructing, not the autograph from the first century, but a relatively late version of the text that happen to have been reflected in a lot of the “best” mss?
I suppose i should have looked harder before asking. Since posting the above, I’ve run across an earlier post on “first century mark”, where you make just the point that we can’t reliably reconstruct the originals because our mss are too late.
But I think my question about how that influences the synoptic problem still stands: how can we reliably establish documentary dependence of one text on another, if we acknowledge that the texts we have were modified by copyists–sometimes quite substantially–who had access to all sorts of other texts?
Yup, it’s a problem, but not necessarily insurmountable. See my earlier reply.
Yes, it’s a great quesiton and one scholars have delved deeply into since the late 18th century. The normal way to deal with it takes a fairly common-sensical approach. The first step is to determine what, based on the existing evidence, appears to be the earliest/best attested/most likely original form of each Gospel (verse by verse/word by word). Only THEN comes the second step of seeing how to solve the problem of their mutual relationship. Those who engage in the two endeavors are usually different scholars (doing textual criticism and dealing with the synoptic problem (with several important exceptions, including one of the first to wrestle with the issue, J. J. Griesbach), and most everyone realizes that there cannot be certainty when it comes to some (many?) of the details. but the data are so extensive that it’s usually thought that the unresolved passages tend not to throw the analysis off significantly if at all. That’s my view as well, though I’m more inclined to think about the indefinite data more than others do.
As a Christian and “hopeful universalist” my responses are:
1. Wow!
2. I can see why non-Christians accuse us of special pleading regarding our contention that the Holy Spirit ultimately superintended the formation of the canon. The actual history just doesn’t appear to be that obviously supernatural.
3. (Question): Do you, Dr. Ehrman, find any arguments for the supernatural formation of the canon persuasive even to the slightest degree? If yes, which ones?
I”m afraid I don’t now because I don’t believe there is such a thing as supernatural forces that direct what happens in the world. BUT, even before I came to this view, when I was still a Christian, I didn’t think this was a satisfoactory explanation. There are simply too many quirky historical and cultural factors that were involved to see a supernatural guidance to teh process. When I was a believer I also wondered why the debates were so long and protracted (and heated) if it was going to be a foregone conclusion anyway. And if a divine power was behind it because God wanted his people to have his very word — why did he disadvantae the believers of the first 400 years before the decisions were more or less reached?
How interesting!!!
Great post Bart. Thanks for posting.
If the Apocalypse of Peter didn’t make it into the canon because its universalism wasn’t “orthodox,” didn’t teach the “correct doctrine”, then why did Paul’s letters make it in, in spite of his universalist claims in Rom. 5:18; 11:32; Phil. 2:6-11; and 1 Cor, 15:25, 28?
Because Paul also has passages that speak of judgment, condemnation, and destruction, and so the other passages that “seemed” possibly univesalistic were interpreted as intentional exaggerations, or simply as not at tension with the others.
Great synopsis. Thanks!
In my case, I was credentialed with the Assemblies of God while my eschatology changed to include the reality of postmortem conversions. At that point, my choices were to keep my views private or resign my ministry credentials if I wanted to publicly teach my views. I chose to resign and write about my views. I do not recall anybody calling me a heretic, but I am definitely outside of US mainstream evangelicalism.
I did not yet write about the Apocalypse of Peter, but I definitely appreciate that it gives us second-century evidence of Christian universalism 🙂
What was the motivation behind the church leaders’ rejection of universal salvation for all?
They didn’t think it was fair or just, and God above all is fair and just.
How do we know what Early Church Fathers said or thought about the Apocalypse of Peter? You say that many held in it high esteem. How many? What percentage roughly? A few, a lot? I’d be interested to see what evidence we have about that. I plan on getting to your big books, Counter-forgery and Orthodox Corruption. Do you deal with this in there?
We can’t do percentages since we have no idea how many church leaders there were, let alone how many thought this that or the other thing. I deal with the issue in my book Journeys to Heaven and Hell, where I have a chapter devoted to the issue. The basic poit is that virtually every Christian source that mentions the Apocalypse in the second and third centuries (Muratorian canon, Clement of Alexandria, pagan opponent of Christianity Pophyry….) considered it to be part of the Christian scriptures; it comes into question in writers of the fourth century (Eusebius); and eventually then gets completely rejected.