Loading...In my previous posts I talked about how I came to be convinced to write my textbook on the New Testament, back in the early to mid 1990s. Once I agreed to do it, the first step was to decide exactly what *kind* of Introduction to the New Testament I wanted it to be. This was a problem, because I was pretty sure that the kind of introduction that I would like to write would not be the kind of introduction that college professors would like to use.
There were already lots of textbooks on the New Testament available at the time. I myself had used two different ones over the years, one that was filled with all sorts of jargon and assumptions that made it way over my students heads (that one didn’t last! but for years it was one of the most widely used on the market); the other one was very sensitive to the theological interests of the authors and, presumably, of the students, and that was very heavy on using each chapter to *interpret* each of the biblical books, to unpack what they meant.
There was one other kind of textbook that was out there: that was a book that approached the writings of the New Testament from a literary perspective rather than a theological/interpretive perspective. The literary approach used various forms of literary analysis to explain how each of the writings worked as pieces of literature.
I was not interested in writing a book like any of these. I did not want my book to presuppose lots of views of scholarship or use scholarly jargon; I did not want it principally to summarize what each book of the New Testament said or to explain at length its theological meaning; and I did not want to focus exclusively or even primarily on literary methods of analysis so as to treat these books as pieces of literature. I wanted, instead, to focus on a rigorously *historical* approach to the New Testament. And I wasn’t sure anyone would be interested in that.
A historical approach is, of course…
THE REST OF THE POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, ACT BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!! THE END MAY BE NEAR!
Very well put, Dr. E.
Interesting that you weren’t sure a historical approach would be of interest. This is exactly the approach in my undergraduate Introduction to the Bible course in Fall 1996. We used the third edition of Harris’s Understanding the Bible, though I don’t remember how much the historical emphasis came from him as opposed to the professor. I remember lots of students complained that it was like having a history class. We learned lots of ins and outs of the ancient Middle East, had timelines situating prophets in their historical situation, and exams that dealt with the history as much as the texts. We just barely got up to the gospels, though, since it was his first semester and he over-planned it. Harris also included apocryphal works, such as the Epistle of Barnabas and 1 Enoch.
I generally suspect any approach to a commonly taught subject will find a marketable niche.
Here’s a question – what goes into the timing and contents of a revision? Some publishers seem to want an automatic revision every 3-4 years, which raises suspicions that just want to cut off the resale market. I’ve seen some revisions that substantially add to or change the text to reflect new developments, but others just fiddle with the references, which no one looks at.
Yes, I’m on a four-year cycle, and my editor always tells me that he’s cutting me a break because the competition is on a three-year! The thing is, things do change. If we skipped a cycle, the book would be eight years out of date, and there’s a lot of scholarship that gets published. Every time I do a new edition, I’ve written a couple of otehr books and rethought a lot of things and come to different conclusions or insights about this that or the other thing. Eventually in this threat I’ll indicate what will be different about this 6th edition.
Hi again Mr. Ehrman. According to this recent article: http://www.newsweek.com/jesus-was-crucified-because-disciples-were-armed-bible-analysis-suggests-271436, you’re now reconsidering whether or not Jesus was a pacifist. Have Reza Aslan and Dale Martin got under your skin? or do you still hold that the story of Jesus’ armed disciples was simply a set-up for him to deliver the famous line “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword”? Keen to hear your new thoughts on this question.
YEs, I may discuss it on the blog at some point!
Can’t wait!
Doc Ehrman
i quote :
“Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.”
someone who has read the text many times will ask why jesus did not rebuke the disciple who struck off the ear? why express displeasure to arresting authorities who did not even use their swords and clubs? one of his disciples was also armed . which books can you recommend that can help one question the stories in the nt?
You might start with my book Jesus Interrupted.
Now that I’ve written my reply, below and I am enjoying other replies to your post, I come to this one. When I was writing about Decius Mus showing the similarity of Decius Mus giving his life to save his army, I wrote that Jesus gave his life when he was captured and his followers were not. To complete the parallel, Decius Mus : Jesus AND Decius Mus and army : Jesus and army. Peter wasn’t the only one armed when Jesus was captured in the garden / near the garden.
Dr. Ehrman,
I’m currently reading “Lost Christianities” as per your recommendation. This might be a stupid question, but reading about how Peter and company remained as practicing Jews who happened to believe in Jesus leads me to believe they still worshipped in synagogues just like today’s Messianic Jews and kept the Law…as your book suggests they did in antiquity. Or not? Did this original group of Christ believing Jews morph into something else over time? Or are they linked historically to Messianic Jews? What happened to them? Thanks!
Not a stuid question at all, but a very interesting and important one. Yes, there were forms of Jewish Christianity that survived for centuries. They would have been very different from today’s messianic Jews, which tend to be fundamentalist in their orientation, and so represent a modern phenomenon that cropped up in modern times, without historical continuity with the older groups. These older gropus eventually died out for want of converts.
Wow, I guess I wasn’t expecting to hear they died out. Where could I read up on that history? Is it all lost?
You might check out the book by Daniel Boyarin, Borderlines.
Thanks!
I think the title is a two-word title Border Lines. I just added it to my amazon Wish List – Jesus.
Good post. I especially like the “history” behind the title of your textbook. I do not know whether or not there are other New Testament textbooks using the historical approach, but this approach in your textbook is very helpful.
Bart, I have your Third Edition of The New Testament (2004), fully read. … I’m awaiting receipt of your survey of The Bible. … Thanks for your work. For many I’m sure, you’ve made a difference.
Bart, are you going to discuss how much research you need to do to update this textbook? The trxtbook covers so much territory that keeping up with new research seems as if it could feel overwhelming.
Yes, I obviously can’t keep up on everything. No one can! But I do try to know the most important developments and the ones that make the biggest impact. It’s not so much a matter of doing special research for the textbook as keeping abreast of developments in the field as a research scholar whose day job is to do just that!
When I think of an Historical Approach to the New Testament, the first thing I think of is the historical accuracy of the content. The second thing I think of is the historical context: literature under Roman occupation, under Rome dealing with an uprising, under Rome putting down an uprising, under Rome not wanting to deal with another rebellion anytime soon; under Rome which put an end to the biblical Jesus’s earthly ministry, under Rome which, very importantly, supplanted or usurped the Son of Man’s Kingdom of Heaven/Righteousness–Rome which didn’t necessarily come like a thief in the night, but certainly did steal Jerusalem, took away the treasures of the Temple, destroyed the City, destroyed the Temple, destroyed Temple Judaism, destroyed Masada.
When I think of an Historical Approach to the New Testament, I think primarily of what was written no later than 95 Common Era. Maybe a modern investigative reporter or an archaeologist can uncover something to add to biblical accounts circa 27 – 36 Common Era (for Jesus). But then again, historical accounts about Jesus and all his wonders needs to have been written no later than 40 Common Era. The flurry of gospels were written after: 1) the death of other Jewish purists a) King Izates [50 C.E.], b) Queen Helena [no later than 56 C.E.], and c) James the brother of Jesus [64-66 C.E.; 2) the start of the Jewish Revolt in 66 or 67 Common Era and/ or when sacrifices for the well-being of the Roman Emperor stopped; 3) the Destruction of the Temple by Rome, 70 CE; and 4) the end of the Jewish Revolt, 73 C.E. The flurry of gospels being written after all these suggest an impetus not of the wonders of Jesus 27 – 36 C.E. but the need for a collection of writings that calm the rebellious nature of Roman subjects. And, that’s what the New Testament is, a book to build character away from rebelling against Rome.
Given Rome’s indispensable contextual value, we must explore even further the great story of a man sacrificed so others can live. When we do this, we come to the historian Livy (64 or 59 BCE to 17 CE). For the full reference, see The History of Rome 8,9. Briefly, the following: “Decius exclaimed: Valerius, we need the help of the gods! Come now, you are a state pontiff[!, I’m adding emphasis on the word pontiff] of the Roman people–dictate the formula whereby I may devote myself to save the legions…” Decius Mus was did lose his life for victory which is a model for victory in Jesus. The sacrifice of Jesus is palatable for Roman ears where Christianity survived in Roman Christianity. Decius Mus saved a military advance and that was the military good news. Decius Mundus would be a savior of the world, a Christian claim. The character Decius Mundus appears in the second of three passages in Antiquities of the Jews, written by the Roman historian, Josephus. The first passage is the Testimonium Flavianum where Josephus speaks of Jesus being crucified by Pilate and appearing to loved ones after his death. Jesus who died to save others (only he was taken from the Garden of Gethsemene, saving his disciples from capture, let alone saving people by dying for the sins of the world) is linked to Decius Mus who died for his followers, let alone Rome or whatever the stakes were in the battle being fought. So, Jesus is Decius Mundus who appears to a loving devotee on the third day. Josephus, an insider to Rome’s patronage of Christian literature, whistleblows a fact of Christianity to us at the end of the Decius Mundus passage and in the third passage of the three.
So, a historical approach to the New Testament brings its readers to the mountains of Christian History: Rome’s governance of Palestine, the gospels/military good news of Rome’s keeping the peace in the area, Rome’s historians, Rome’s propaganda to quell descent, Rome’s theft of the treasures of the Temple, Rome’s theft of Temple Judaism and Jesus’s Kingdom of God/Heaven/Righteousness.
“The flurry of gospels being written after all these suggest an impetus not of the wonders of Jesus 27 – 36 C.E. but the need for a collection of writings that calm the rebellious nature of Roman subjects.”
And why the need to write them in Greek and the need of patrons to have them written in Greek? Did Rome believe its destruction of Jerusalem would lead to a better sitting of Hellenism in Judea?
Some teach that there was an oral tradition. If the oral origin was Aramaic (and Jesus reading synagogue scriptures in Hebrew and Aramaic), why did the written preservation of the oral tradition flip to Greek? Well, the patrons were Greek speakers, they surely would not have been the Temple authorities whom Jesus criticized.
Queen “Helena” probably could be classified as a Hellenist. When this question came to me earlier when I was writing the first edition of The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy, I could not get people in Adiabene or Edessa to use the Greek language. What was it, Syriac? The Parthians contemporary Armenians didn’t seem to be the height of cultural refinement–probably, partially the reason why Queen Helena preferred the cosmopolitan setting of Jerusalem under Rome. She moved there when Herod the Great certainly was giving pull factors in building projects. What affluent and top 10% would not have wanted to experience Jerusalem at that time?
At church Sunday, the minister was setting the stage for the biblical Jesus’ entrance to the Jerusalem scene. Again, there was mention that there is no proof that Jesus addressed the Hellenists. I say, “again,” because when Highland Park UMC – Kerygma teaching service was covering Acts, the same thing was said then. Can we really say Stephen didn’t hear Jesus speak and was so impressed that his loyalty led to martyrdom?
Still, the writing down of the Gospels in Greek does not happen until the vacuum created by the destruction of Temple Judaism. (And the New York University course I took circa 1983-1984 taught by F. E. Peters, author of “The Children of Abraham” and other books still provides structure to my understanding of Judaism.)
Look at this: F. E. Peters wrote a book called, The Harvest of Hellenism: A History of the Near East from Alexander the Great to the Triumph of Christianity. (Unfortunately, at amazon, there’s no look inside so we can see the table of contents.)
Dr. Ehrman, have you had a chance to read anything by Dr. Peters? Maybe the book above when writing Early Christianities?
Look what one reviewer says about Peters’ book: “Immensely informative, never dull, often written with an eye for the absurd and humorous, the book describes both the history and the cultural phenomena from the death of Alexander the Great to Constantine. Chapters of history alternate with chapters on various philosophies. The rise of Christianity is delineated without bias–which I found very pleasant, as I am not a Christian enthusiast. The various conflicts of the early Christian sects are well-explained, as is the incredibly complicated politics of the entire region, and for the first time, I found Greek philosophical movements like the Epicurians and the Pythagoreans understandable. In the past quarter century, I must have reread the book half a dozen times.”
P.S.: yes, there was a vacuum created by the destruction of Temple Judaism, but not just the actual destruction but earlier, when it became evident. (Some would say it was evident to the biblical Jesus who made a prophecy approximately 40 years before Rome’s victory.) So, the early dating of the publishing of the Gospel of Mark could still be a preparation for something to replace militant, messianic Judaism.
No, I haven’t read his book.
That’s a very interesting approach to the writings of the time and I’m sure that approach helped define the culture of that day. I consider the cultural background of any subject to be very important.
Geez of jesus loved his twin brother this
Much
Imagine those who do not listen to him
Would not want be against jesus for I am not
I believe and pray to zeus but
Trying to seek and figure out the mysteries of jesus he who came straight from heaven
So
I understand that
Authors back then only
Scribed most important and highlights of holy people but jesus
Was an expectation and I think if they knew would he did in his 20’s
they would write everything
But Jesus’s comes holiness after baptist ism by John the Baptist ?
So with all this being said
Jesus mysterious and jog the baptist knew he was from heaven but didn’t know jesus ?
Cause specifically asked are you the one everyone is waiting on?
Didn’t they think that John the Baptist had jesus purposes at first
That’s why it’s stated
For he will come and be greater than john
John the Baptist
Baptizes with faith
And jesus baptizes with straight power
Just blogging 🙂
The savior answered and said, “Truly I tell you that he who will listen to your word and turn away his face or sneer at it or smirk at these things, truly I tell you that he will be handed over to the ruler above who rules over all the powers as their king, and he will turn that one around and cast him from heaven down to the abyss, and he will be imprisoned in a narrow dark place. Moreover, he can neither turn nor move on account of the great depth of Tartaros and the heavy bitterness of Hades that is steadfast […] them to it […] they will not forgive […] pursue you. They will hand […] over to […] angel Tartarouchos […] fire pursuing them […] fiery scourges that cast a shower of sparks into the face of the one who is pursued. If he flees westward, he finds the fire. If he turns southward, he finds it there as well. If he turns northward, the threat of seething fire meets him again. Nor does he find the way to the east so as to flee there and be saved, for he did not find it in the day he was in the body, so that he might find it in the day of judgment.”