Loading...I have been discussing my thoughts about a future book on the canon of the New Testament for a broad reading audience, a book that explains why we got our 27 books, why other books didn’t get in, who made the decisions, on what grounds, and when. To introduce some of these issues I’ve already discussed two books that claimed to be written by the apostle Peter (but weren’t), the Apocalypse and the Gospel of Peter. Neither of them made it into the NT, obviously, but both were thought by some Christian leaders to be bona fide texts of Scripture.
That may be true for the third example I’ll be giving here (of a book allegedly written by Peter), but in this case it is difficult to know if anyone took it as inspired Scripture. Whether they did or not, it never really had much of a chance to make it in. Even so, it’s a fascinating book whose author almost certainly wanted it to be granted apostolic and canonical authority. It is a letter written by “Peter” to the head of the church in Jerusalem, James, the brother of Jesus.
The New Testament indicates that
I bet no one you know knows anything about this letter. In it Peter claims that Paul is his “enemy.” Join the blog and you can read all about it. Click here for membership options
Fascinating. Where might we find a translation of this letter? When was it written?
Hi Lms728, I’ll let Bart correct me if I’m wrong or confirm if I’m correct. I found the following translation of the pseudonymous “Epistle of Peter to James” from an online version of “The Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325” by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Editors (https://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-42.htm#P3254_1014821).
Great presentation Dr Ehrman. The letter does accurately reflect the Jewish Christian view of the conflict between Peter and Paul. More historical than the orthodox view of denying the conflict. Not all Jewish Christians hated Paul, which is why Marcion and Mani retained some of his teachings, but some sects carried their animus all the way into the Qur’an.
Do you think that the conflict was foundational? I think that the early Church preferred Peter and James, and the later orthodoxy preferred Paul, probably by necessity.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-8-third-fourth-centuries/pseudo-clementine-literature/epistle-of-peter-to-james.html
My sense is that the early church was divided, some for Peter, others for Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 1 as further evidence); the later church saw the two as coompletely sympatico.
How could the position of Peter and James about the need to follow Mosaic law not be what Jesus intended considering what Jesus reportedly said in Matthew 5:17-20?
As you probalby know, there are lots of interpretatoins of that passage, so it is not logically *necessary* that it coinciddes ith the view of the letter from Peter. It would have to be argued that they both have the same exact view in mind.
[… the books of Peter’s preaching are not to be given to “any one of the gentiles,” nor to any “of our own tribe” (Jews) before they have gone through a period of trial to demonstrate that they are trustworthy. ]
They = trustworthy books or the trustworthy people? LOL
Bart,
In either case, what books, besides the OT, Q or some early/developing version of Mark’s gospel, could Peter be referring as “books of Peter’s preaching” if he was illiterate? Or could Clement’s referencing Peter’s letter be serving as an indirect means of supporting Clement’s own works? Do we see enough evidence that Clement was seriously attempting to build some (his) canonical writings path through his and subsequent “Pope’s” writings?
The imaginary author is imagining imaginary books. He’s not necessarily referring to things we know of or have. He’s just saying that he’s written a lot and his writings are clear about his views and these writings need to be preserved and not altered. The whole thing is a fiction. It’s *possible* the real (as opposed to the claimed) author was referring to some works of Peter in particular, but it’s not necessary to think that he was.
There are so many nuances to the bible. How can anyone claim to have an authoritative interpretation to its meaning. Such a stance seems arrogant. Thank you for the enlightenment, once again.
I guess you could say the same about lots of literature: Plato, Shakespeare, Joyce e.g. But people who spend their lives studying such literature have a better shot at knowing what it is all about than those of us who just read thorugh it once.
I don’t remember hearing about this epistle before, wow! So how confident are scholars of its authenticity?
Everyone agrees it’s a forgery.
Re: “Paul is obviously ‘the man who is my enemy’ and ‘the gentiles’ are his converts.”
Why did the author leave out the name of the “enemy” in question?
It made it more interesting that way, less obvious and banal.
Wasn’t it common among early Christians to believe that you could only repent of your sins once? Any sins after that were damning? And was that one time tied to forgiveness through Baptism? Was that the (proto) orthodox belief or only true of certain groups?
When did that begin to change so that sins could repeatedly be forgiven?
It definitely begins to change in teh second century, when authors like Hermas (in his book the Shepherd) and Tertullian started to claim there could be ONE second chance, a SECOND repentance. But nothing after that. Two strikes and you’re out. THe reason for developing the view is pretty obvious: lots of peole fell back into their old ways. They could have a chance to change that, but not an indefinite number of chances.
Very interesting
Within Christianity, there was a rebellious sect (names we do not know) called “the circumcision party.” Paul was continually at war with these Jewish-Christians as they continued to insist, after James’ ruling in Acts 15, that the Gentiles be circumcised and convert to Judaism. Paul didn’t take it upon himself to teach Gentiles; James assigned him, along with Barnabas, to be apostles to the Gentiles (Acts 15:25, Galatians 2:9). This “circumcision party” is mentioned in Galatians 2:12 and Titus 1:10. It is likely, in my opinion, that they evolved into the sect of the Ebionites; two clues are (1) they hated Paul, and (2) they wanted nothing to do with Gentiles. Paul was on the same page with James and all the other apostles.
Absolutely fascinating. Didn’t know about this one. I wonder if there was more nuance in the actual historical tension between these camps and individuals? Didn’t Paul have some expectations of ethical behavior of Gentiles who converted based on Jewish law such as a certain sexual propriety? Did the historical Peter and James let go of some expectations for Gentiles according to Jewish law maybe perhaps some kosher items? To what degree of adherence to Jewish law did these individuals expect of Gentiles? Where did they land on the spectrum? It probably was not wholly and completely binary maybe?
Yes, there is usually far more nuance in positions set in binary opposition! Think, politics.
So if the original apostles were not in agreement then how can we possibly be sure the end result was correct? 😉
Do you mean “religiously correct” or “theologically true.” Certainly not on the basis of historical or textual analysis. Those kinds of examination can never reveal absolute truth.
This clementine letter of Peter could have been derived from the already lost original jewish Christian documents.
PS. I do not doubt that Paul (or Saul) is the implied “enemy”. I’m wondering how to explain the decision of the author not to name him. For example, I’m wondering if this might be explained as a rhetorical pattern in this kind of discourse.
It makes it far more interesting and less banal. (“I hate Paul” isn’t very intriguing and a bit too obvious).
I have trouble understanding Peter’s defeat vis a vis Paul. Paul “won” the argument and the entire definition of Christianity.
I also don’t understand how Peter could remain the head of the Church after such a major loss of face, of severe public rebuke, of cancelled theology, in spite of his uncontested witnessing of Jesus’ life, words and deeds. Paul, after all, was an interloper, compared to Peter’s stature and the fact that Jesus chose Peter.
Was this caused by Peter’s inconsistency or perhaps he was not as strident or monolithic as Paul? Peter sounds very forceful at the beginning, a strong leader.
I know that Jesus, who first preached to ” the lost sheep of Israel”, later exhorted his apostles to preach to the Gentiles, according to the Gospels. But he never reneged of his conviction of maintaining the complete ” performance” of the Torah ( I don’t like to call it ” Law”. Torah literally means instruction, not law. The many words for Law are different).
Surely, it was Paul’s discarding the Torah that allowed the eventual phenomenal triumph of Christianity. Simply, I just don’t see that Constantine would have made a good candidate for circumcision.
What happened historically is that Christians claimed Peter and Paul were completely on teh same page, so that Paul did not “win” or “lose.” They agreed. You find that view already in the NT book of Acts. Paul’s letter to the GAlatians that indicates a serious split was then read in *light* of the view that there was not really a serious split. And still is by most readers today!
This is so fascinating. It reminds me of the terrifying passage in the Hebrew Bible where parents are commanded to bring their disobedient child to be stoned to death. The Rabbis, through centuries of biblical interpretation, concluded that this never happened, because there would have been no such disobedient child in Israel!. In short, they never applied this instruction, it simply never happened. So, it was indeed much better for the good of Christendom if Peter and Paul completely agreed.
Interesting to hear the claim that Peter viewed Paul as an “enemy.” Paul did write that he rebuked Peter publicly. Perhaps this is an accurate take on their relationship?
My sense is that Paul had the accurate take; but the idea that they were completely sympatico took over and that’s how most reades understand the NT (book of Acts, etc.)
If Paul was as knowledgable in the Hebrew Scriptures as I’ve read and Peter and his fellow apostles were uneducated and likely could not read or write, it must have been difficult for Paul when arguing with the apostles over how to interpret the Scriptures. Paul may have thought, “I can’t believe I’m arguing with these ignorant people”. I know some very smart people today who think that way about those less knowledgable.
Hey Bart, you say the letter in question was “allegedly written by Clement, Peter’s successor as bishop of Rome.” Wondering what historical evidence places Peter in Rome, let alone being it’s first bishop?
We don’t start getting indications that Peter was in Rome, or a founder of the Roman church, until the second century. Our earliest references to Peter outside the NT (e.g., 1 Clement — which was actually written by the Rman church) don’t say anything about it.
Prof Ehrman
What is your take on the ossuary found in Israel , on the Mount of Olives in 1953, inscribed ” Shimon bar Jonah”, Simon Peter’s name? ( Matthew 16:17).
There is a book by Jack Finegan, ” The Archeology of the New Testament: the Life of Jesus and the Beginning of the Early Church, Princeton Legacy Library”.
If St.Peter is indeed buried in Rome , we might infer that there was another Shimon bar Jonah in Israel in Jesus’ time. I don’t have the statistical chops to evaluate the likelihood.
It is also possible that such ossuary is a forgery, though being kept in a most humble Franciscan abode in Jerusalem, there doesn’t seem to have been a reason to forge it. Besides, it was found in a reputable excavation, not in the dubious antiquity market.
Is it indeed possible, knowing what we can historically know, that Peter was in fact buried in Jerusalem?
It appears that the original excavator misread the inscription. See, e.g. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26732498
Bart, there is a lively conversation on @Testify’s YouTube channel about your comments that you don’t think early Christianity thought Jesus was Yahweh. I would share the link, but I think you have heard enough people tell you that you must be biased, uniformed and a sloppy researcher to not know that Jesus was considered to be Yahweh by early Christians.
The arguments presented so far are basically quotes from the bible and early church father’s that make it clear they thought Jesus was God. They then draw the implication that if Yahweh is God and Jesus is God, then Jesus is Yahweh. Would you care to respond or at least reference one of your books/blog posts that elucidate how you navigate this issue?
Yes, Jesus was understood to be God. But he was not Yahweh. Yahweh is the father, Christ is the son. They are equal but not identical. To think they are identical is an ancient heresy (Modalism). THis is not a view I came to as a scholar. It was the view I and everyone I knew had even when I was a fundamentalist.
“For them, Peter and James were the stalwarts – the original companions of Jesus, who knew what he actually taught.”
But you said earlier James did not follow Jesus. Can you or someone please clarify?
“…according to the Gospels James and his other brothers were not among Jesus’ earthly followers.”
———–
Why did Paul come to an alternative view? Something Jesus said to him? The simple concept of inclusivity?
“Even though he was himself a faithful Jew, Paul came to an alternative view, possibly from the time of his conversion.”
————
“Paul was the arch-enemy.”
How ironic since Jesus was a Jew who became an arch-enemy as well!
————-
“Peter, in other words, insists that the Mosaic Law continues in full force. To think otherwise is to oppose God, Moses, and Jesus (2.5).”
Peter “insists” in the letter to James, correct?
In either case, I wonder if the revelation and reinforcement of Peter’s words might have changed the minds of those who hated and still hate the Jews because his words reinforce the fact the Jews are the chosen people.
——————-
“Despite the revered status of this Petrine letter among groups of Jewish Christians, orthodox church leaders would have considered it a heretical forgery”
Orthodox church leaders who Paul most influenced, I suppose.
I think that the idea is that as his brother James would have known what Jesus’ taught while alive; but that he didn’t become a believer until after his death. His close connection gave him a special status though in the Xn community later. Paul’s views came to him at the moment he believed he had a vision of Jesus and a revelation about the significance of his death.
You wrote, “From various sources we hear of conflicts between Paul on one hand and Peter and/or James on the other.” What are these “various sources”?
Galatians. Probably the letter of James. And of course later sources such as Marcion. Etc.
Did you read my Biblica article, which argues that there was no doctrinal conflict between Paul and Peter or James? If so, how do you rebut it?
I think your position is that Marcion and the author of James misunderstood Paul, so you are not arguing that they provide evidence for a conflict between the real Paul and the real Jerusalem apostles. Right?
Nope, I haven’t. Sorry. But I’m not arguing there was a doctrinal dispute either. I’m arguing that Paul convinced them but they still disagreed on the practical implications of their agreed theological views. And no, I’m not arguing that the author of James misunderstood Paul. I have a long discussion of the matter in Forgery and Counterforgery, that the author of James is arguing against a view such as is found in the (non-Pauline) Ephesians. Whether he *imagines* that is an argument against Paul is a different question.
On a scale of 1 to 10, “1” being the Book of Acts’ one big happy family, and “10” being a complete schism; what do you think was the actual historical result of the First Jerusalem Council?
Thanks
5?
Paula Fredriksen has pointed out that there was another reason that Paul rejected circumcision and observance of the Law — I.e., conversion to Judaism— for his gentiles.
Existing Jewish eschatology included the idea that with the coming of the messiah, all the nations would join the Jews in worshipping Israel’s god at the Temple in Jerusalem, and they would do that as they were, without becoming Jews themselves.
That allowed Paul to believe that his success in getting gentiles to believe in Jesus and worship Jahweh was in itself evidence that the last days had begun and that converting pagans to Jews was thus unnecessary and contrary to prophecy.
After years of trying to learn the historical truth of Paul’s conversion, I’ve given up.
Although I know that it is something that ignoramus et ignorabimus, I would like to broaden my knowledge of this fundamental episode for Christianity that is wrapped in thick veils of silence.
In addition, the little information that escapes that silence is litter that covers the possible historical events of that conversion, which has a great and showy dramatic sense with its Deus ex machina included.
So please, Dr. Ehrman, help me continue my investigations, as I am very curious as to how Paul’s conversion process actually happened (if we can ever know anything with any historical reliability, which I doubt).
I devote a chapter to the issue of Paul’s conversion in my book The Triumph of Christianity.
Dr. Ehrman,
When Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 1:23 that “…we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles…” Is Paul pointing to the fact that Jesus’ ignominious death prevented many Jews from accepting Jesus as the Messiah?
However,
didn’t one view of the coming Messiah stipulate that he would be a “suffering servant?”
1. Yes. 2. No. That view is not attested prior to Xty.
Dr. Ehrman,
It may seem like a very basic question but why in Isaiah 53, plainly read, is there always the term “He” as if it means a specific person?
Yes. Just like in Daniel 7, each of the beasts coming out of the see is an individual, even though it represents a nation (so too the one like a Son of man); and like Israel itself which is likened to an indivicual (for examle in Hosea)
Thanks!
“…we know of second-century Jewish followers of Jesus who held a highly negative view of Paul, maintaining that he had corrupted the original message of Christ by promoting a non-Jewish faith. For them, Peter and James were the stalwarts – the original companions of Jesus, who knew what he actually taught.”
This is a true statement, wouldn’t you agree?
Yes.
It looks to me that the First Jerusalem Council did not put Paul in accord with the Jerusalem Church. The rules handed down are the same as the rules for sojourners living with the Jews. Paul’s Gentile converts did not get full acceptance. They got the status of outsiders who are tolerated but well treated. It’s a leap of faith to think that the Gentiles were full members without observance of the Law.
what is the name of the manuscript and when is it dated?
This letter is usually just called “Letter from Peter to James” (scholars call it the Epistula Petri). It does not exist as a stand alone manuscript, but is one of the opening documents of the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies. If you want a full discussion, I give it in my book Forgery and Counterforgery (pp.305-08) and more briefly in my book Forged.