In a previous post I gave the introduction to my book about ancient forgery, Forged, written for a general audience. Posting it reminded me of a modern forgery that was done by a bona fide scholar — of a Gospel text! I heard the story numerous times because the fraud was exposed by my own teacher, Bruce Metzger. I think the first time I wrote about the story was in my book Lost Christianities (Oxford University Press, 2003). Here is what I said there:
******************************
Some forgeries have been perpetrated in modern times, of direct relevance to our current study of early Christian apocrypha. One might think that in our day and age, no one would be so deceitful as to try and pawn off any first hand accounts of Jesus as authentic. But in fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. Strange Gospels appear regularly, if you know where to look for them.[1] Often these record incidents in the “lost years” of Jesus – e.g., accounts of Jesus as a child or a young man prior to his public ministry (this genre goes all the way back to the second century, as we’ll see in a later chapter), describing, for example, his trips to India to learn the wisdom of the Brahmins (how else would he be so wise? Not by spending his free hours with the illiterate peasants of a one-horse town like Nazareth!), or his exploits in the wilderness, joining up with Jewish monks to learn the ways of holiness.
These new Gospels don’t need to concern us overly much here; most of them are as artificial as you can imagine and are useful chiefly in showing that folks are not only strange but gullible – these tend to be the stuff of supermarket tabloids – and that there are still forgers in our midst who have no qualms about fabricating flat out lies, even about their own religion, in order to make a splash and possibly get across their point of view. Or, at least, to make a few bucks.
But what about serious forgery by intelligent people, trained scholars, experts in ancient languages and history? Does such a thing ever occur in the modern world? Do scholars ever forge documents to their own ends, whatever those ends may be?
The answer here again is quite unambiguous, for it occasionally happens and the forgers themselves are occasionally detected. It tends to be harder to pin forgery on a real scholar than a creative but unskilled lay person: no one attempts the deed without feeling reasonably good about his or her chances to pull it off, and given sufficient scholarly ingenuity, it is indeed sometimes possible to stay a step ahead of the skeptics. But not always.
An amusing instance involves an article published in a highly respected scholarly journal in 1950.[2] The article was entitled, somewhat ironically, “An Amusing Agraphon.” The term “agraphon” literally means “unwritten,” but is a technical term among New Testament scholars to refer to a saying of Jesus that is recorded in some ancient source other than the canonical Gospels. There are a large number of such sayings, for example, in the non-canonical Gospels (as we are seeing), and other places.[3] For example, in the book of Acts, Paul quotes Jesus as saying that “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). Jesus may well have said so, but the saying is not found in the canonical Gospel accounts of his teachings, and so is an agraphon.
The “Amusing Agraphon” of the article’s title was allegedly found in a manuscript that contained a set of sermons on the Gospel of Matthew. The author of the article was a respected professor of classics at Princeton University, Paul Coleman-Norton, who indicated that in 1943, while with the U.S. armed forces in the town of Fédhala, in French Morocco, he was visiting a Muslim mosque and was shown there a peculiar thick tome filled, as one might expect in that setting, with Arabic writings. But inserted among its leaves was a single parchment page containing a Greek text, a fragmentary copy of a Greek translation of a set of originally Latin homilies on Matthew chs. 1-13 and 19-25. Given the situation – war time in French Morocco – and the exigencies of the moment, he was not able to photograph the page; but he was allowed to make a careful transcription of it. Later, when he was able to study the text at greater leisure, he found that it contained a striking and previously unknown “agraphon.”
In Matt 24:51, after Jesus’ famous warning about the one who will be “cast into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” the manuscript indicated that Jesus’ conversation with his disciples continued. Here, one of the disciples, puzzled by his statement, asks Jesus the question that may have occurred to others over the years: “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?” Whereupon Jesus replies: “Oh you of little faith! Do not be troubled. If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
It’s a terrific little agraphon, almost too good to be true. And in fact, it was too good to be true. My own professor in graduate school, Bruce Metzger, had been a student of Coleman-Norton in the classics department at Princeton before the war. As Metzger himself tells it, his revered Latin professor used to regale his class (in the 1930s) with the witticism that dentures would be provided in the afterlife for all those who were toothless, enabling them to weep and gnash their teeth.
No one else has ever seen the ancient one-page Greek text in French Morocco that allegedly contained the verse. Metzger concludes – and everyone appears to agree with him – that Coleman-Norton simply made the story up and published it, with an erudite philological analysis, in the respected Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Why? Possibly because he thought it would be both a good joke to play on his fellow scholars, possibly to see if he could get away with it. I suppose he nearly did.[4]
[1]Such as “The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ,” “The Aquarian Gospel” and “The Crucifixion of Jesus, By an Eyewitness,” all summarized and discussed in the terrific little book, Strange New Gospels, by Edgar J. Goodspeed (Chicago: University Press, 1931). See also the more recent discussions of Per Beskow, Strange Tales about Jesus: A Survey of Unfamiliar Gospels, (Philadelphia, Fortress, 1983; Swedish original 1979).
[2]See Metzger, “Literary Forgeries,” 4.
[3]For a full accounting of them, see William D. Stroker, Extracanonical Sayings of Jesus (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).
[4]In addition to the work mentioned in note 3, see the fuller account in Metzger’s autobiography, Reminiscences of an Octogenarian (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 1997) 136-39.
This is a brilliant story 🙂. I think it’s true to say that it has passed into the public consciousness. I can recall Irish comedian Dave Allen (a regular on BBC television in the 1970s, who specialised in religious humour) tell it as a joke (with the scholarly forgery element omitted).
Yup, my wife says it was told by Ian Paisley (also Irish).
After reading “ Russia’s war on Ukraine has some Christians wondering: Is this the end of the world? https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2022/03/10/russia-putin-end-of-the-world/
I was amused to read that that ‘Some evangelicals once believed that Mikhail Gorbachev, the former leader of the Soviet Union, was the Antichrist, because he had a birthmark on his forehead …“the mark of the beast,” ‘ But, then it prompted me to look up the Schofield Bible and then dispensationalism and then – well; I had no idea so many bright, studied (albeit I think misdirected), modern day people had … dreamed up so much added on to the … paragraph or so Jesus probably said.Don’t know if it would interest others but as an addon to your work or Revelations might be how the apocalypticism in the Bible accelerated with John the Devine and continued with Dante and Milton and continues at least into last week with Pat Robertson!
Thanks. Yup, I deal with the history of this kind of interpretation — and mention Gorbachev,as it turns out!
Bart, do you continue to think the so-called “Secret Gospel of Mark” is probably authentic as you seem to be quoted as saying in this article?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark
Actually, in my publications I’ve suggested its a forgery by Morton Smith himself. I can’t be sure, of course, but that’s my inclintion.
Somewhat off topic, but I can’t think of anywhere else to ask this question, and you’d be the right person to ask, I would think. Seems that Morton Smith and Dr. Metzger would have been about the same generation; what was their professional relationship/ views of each other like, from your perspective? Or am I off and their paths never crossed at all?
Ha! Good question. They were both brilliant linguists and about as different human beings as two American biblicals scholars of the same generation could be, in almost every way. I don’t know Smith’s view of Metzger, but probably it was that he was a fine technicion but hopelessly narrow and conservative; Metzger thought that Smith had a personal agenda and no qualms about stretching or inventing the truth.
Terrific thanks for the response!
Bart, would it be OK if I shared this post — via copy and paste — with the nearly 5,000 friends and followers I have on Facebook? I think they’d like it and it might bring you some new members here.
Absolutely! As long as you tell them seomthing about hte blog!
An article appeared in today’s issue of Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04448-z) describing how a group of scholars used AI in conjunction with their own expertise to restore ancient Greek inscriptions. Not directly relevant to manuscripts, but one can imagine using a similar process on ms with missing words, correlating the many Oxyrhynchus fragments, or working with the many cuneiform tablets, and the like. The article is open access.
Whoa. That sounds important.
I’ve always found it inconsistent for Christians to say we should put others before ourselves, serve others rather than ourselves, put others first. Both the golden rule and great commandment actually say, more or less, to treat others equally to one’s own self. Furthermore, there’s something incoherent about me saying I should not serve my own good when the rule I’m following implies that others should serve my good too.
I can think of a couple justifications for a rule that puts others first. (1) We naturally put ourselves first most of the time. We need to fight against this tendency by at least considering others first. (2) It frees us from the burden of egoism, from being preoccupied with ourselves, defending ourselves and our self-esteem rather than simply letting ourselves spontaneously flow outward to others.
Do you see putting others first as an inconsistency? If so how do you resolve it? Or, as the gospels might say, am I being a scribe or pharisee on this topic?
It actually doesn’t say to put others before oneself but to treat others *as* yourself. You feed yourself. Feed others.
This is a story about a chair rather than a manuscript, but it should still serve as a useful warning: https://www.woodshopnews.com/columns-blogs/the-great-brewster-chair-and-how-it-was-recreated
Plus, it is a very interesting story on its own merits.
Not to mention The Secret Gospel of Mark!
Very amusing. Here’s one for you, which one of these is not a Jewish or Christian text?
a) Qoheleth
b) Gospel of Thomas
c) The Shepherd of Hermas
d) The Book of Boba Fett
Can you elaborate on Romans 16 being an ending of another letter wrongly added to Romans ending?
I am convinced by at least 4 strong reasons why this is the case but would like your intake.
The classic study of it is a book by Harry Gamble (a publication of his Yale dissertatino) who argued it was not an ending added later, after looking at all the evidence. Two of the strongest arguments for it not being original is that 15:33 certainly looks like the conclusoiin of the letter and that it is mightly strange that Paul would know so many people by name in a congregation he’s never even visited before.
Bart,
Off topic question regarding our lack of any early NT Hebrew manuscripts (forged or otherwise).
Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome all made statements that ‘Matthew'(or Levi) had created his gospel writings in Hebrew (with a copy at the library in Caesarea circa as of ~382 AD!)
How likely is it that “Matthew’s”(or any) or any other Hebrew NT document existed (and was either lost, destroyed, stolen?) Is it more likely that the Greeks/pagans had the demand for Greek language gospels while there was virtually no demand or means to publish a Hebrew gospel until much later?
If the Hebrew documents existed, where would they have been located/distributed? Jerusalem, Antioch, Egypt?
Thanks!
I”d say it’s highly unlikely. I think all these authors living later were repeating a rumor, that the four last you mention got it from Papias who simply didn’t know but was guessing. We certainly have no acatual evidene of a Hebrew Matthew, until someone composed on in the middle ages.
Bart,
Thank you for the response. The statement made by Jerome that he actually SAW the Hebrew Matthew document in the Caesarean Library makes me think that there was such a document, but Jerome may also have been referring to a non-gospel ‘Matthew’ document mentioned by Papias that contained the saying of Jesus (much like a Hebrew ‘Gospel of Thomas’). On the other hand, Jerome supposedly knew enough Hebrew to be able to know if it was just a sayings collection or a gospel! I’d certainly trust Jerome’s facts more than Papias.
An early Hebrew Matthew (or any other early Hebrew Christian document might qualify into the ‘holy grail’ category type of documents.
Yes, I used to think that too until I started looking at everything Jerome actually said about it, and it became pretty clear that it was all confused. If you want to see an analysis, see A. F. J. Klijn Jewish Christian Gospel Traditions.
Dr, when you study the manuscrips of new testament, do you find that later manuscripts correct bad greek grammar and spelling of earlier manuscripts?
For example:
You have an early manuscript of mark. In the later centuries, scribe unhappy with marks grammar and spelling makes corrections.
Not that often, though sometimes. More often they sijmply change Mark’s dubious statements into line with the alerations already found in Matthew and/or Luke.
If Jesus is (one of) the most influential person(s) in human history, does more of that influence come from what people have believed or made up about Jesus (eg, his resurrection) or more from the historical Jesus himself and what he taught? What influence of the historical Jesus has continued more or less continuously over the centuries? I would say it’s his message of hope and ethic of loving service.
IN my book Jesus Before the Gospels I argue strongly that the Jesus who influenced history is the “Remembered Jesus” rather than the “Historical Jesus”
Speaking of modern forgeries, if you have not read Ariel Sabar’s Book “Veritas: A Harvard Professor, A Con Man and the Gospel of Jesus’s Wife,” put it on your must-read list immediately!
He sent it to me to read before he published it. Very damning.
“Jesus’ diary ” has been a fruitful comic device down the years – “Monday, walked on water, Tuesday, went for a swim but kept banging my head on the surface…” etc.
Prof Ehrman,
Please what in your view accounts for the order of arrangements of the Gospels in the NT. Matthew – Mark – Luke – John. Why this specific order?
There were various arrangements in antiquity. This particular one begins and ends with an allegedly eyewitnesss account by disciples, and puts inside them two accounts connected with the two great apostles (Mark the secretary of Peter; Luke the companion of Paul: so we have Peter’s and Paul’s Gospels, in a sense). Mathew was thought to be the source of Mark in antiquity, and so immediately preceded it as first; and everyone knew John was last, so it took up the final place.
I read Lost Christianities a while ago, probably before Covid hit the world! Thanks for refreshing my memory!
You have a good memory. AT first I couldn’t remember it was in there!
As I recall the late great Dave Allen did his Paisley [aka the “gaberdine hate foghorn”] impression for the joke, asking the audience “Who does this remind you of?” Or words that effect.
Yup, my wife knew the Paisley joke as well.