Loading...I sometimes get asked if Jesus ever wrote anything. Well, it depends whom you ask. As it turns out, we do have a couple of ancient writings claiming to be written by Jesus himself. Here is the most famous one that we still have that I blogged about in April 2022, as our Anniversary Post #10.
******************************
In an earlier post I talked about whether Jesus could read, and came up with the definite answer:
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!
Even if Jesus himself had written something, I think mistakes and changes would still have happened. In the ancient world, everything was copied by hand, so it seems almost unavoidable that people would make errors—like skipping lines, repeating words, or misunderstanding what they were copying. And sometimes they might even change things on purpose, maybe to make the text clearer or to fit what they believed.
This doesn’t seem unique to Christianity. I’ve heard that similar things happened with other religious texts too, like the Hebrew Bible, the Qur’an before it was standardized, and even Buddhist scriptures.
Also, even if Jesus had written something, I guess the original probably wouldn’t have survived anyway. What we would have are copies, and those copies would still be different from each other.
So it seems to me that the real issue isn’t just whether something was written, but how it was passed on and understood over time.
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
This is a fascinating post. Is there any other references from the gospel documents (those in Greek and other languages) that indicate Jesus could have been educated in reading, speaking or writing in other languages beside Aramaic?
The oldest one is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which shows JEsus’ intellectual superiority as a young boy over teachers who were trying to educate him (he bests them in his knowledge even of the alphabet; one of them he challenges by saying that if he, the teacher, knows it well, then “tell me the power of the Alpha, and I’ll tell you the power of the Beta…”)
Dr Ehrman, since you brought up Jesus writing on the ground in the gospel of John, I wanted to ask, was that actually him writing (as in, words) on the ground? I’ve heard the verb used there was “grapho” which I’ve also been told could also mean “draw” (which makes sense since it’s the origin of the English word “graphic”). Could he have been “drawing” something rather than writing? As in a map, or almost anything else? Or is the passage just totally ambiguous since there are no other details to go on?
The word is actually KATAGRAPHO, which almost always means to “write” words, not to draw, doodle, etc. NT scholar Chris Keith wrote an entire book arguing that the passage was inserted by scribes in order to show that Jesus was able to write (“writing-literate”)
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
From your earlier lectures and presentations, my understanding is that most of Jesus’s followers were illiterate. What sort of education would Jesus have received that would have set him apart from his disciples? Also, if Jesus was able to read and write, why do we not have more of his writings?
Good questions. The reality is that we don’t have any of his writings, only a couple of writtings from long after his life forged in his name.
It is highly unlikely that Jesus would have been trained to write (e.g., just copy letters) or, even more, to compose amything. He is said to be able to read in only one passage of the New Testament (Luke 4); I’m on the fence about whether he could read or not. I doubt very much that his followers could read. Acts 4:13 indicates that John and Peter could not.
Hello, steynjanr. The scholars are divided regarding the literacy of the ancient Jews in Judea. I propose that the synagogues of the Pharisees offered free literacy education to the members of the synagogue. This tradition is seen in contemporary Muslim fundamentalist societies. The Muslims adopted the practice from the Jews! Hillel the Elder was the founder of the Pharisees. He arrived in 40 BCE with the coup that almost killed Herod. When Herod returned with a mercenary army in 37 BCE, Hillel was scheduled to be publicly beheaded with his peers from Mesopotamia. Instead, Herod funded the literary program in Judea as a PSYOPS. The synagogues did not exist in Judea until Hillel “imported” the idea from the Diaspora. The Zealots of Damascus and Galilee were zealous for a Jewish kingdom. The Pharisees were zealous for the Laws of Moses. 2nd Maccabees was written as propaganda for the synagogues’ literacy education. Free literacy education for the adults and the children?!? An irresistible lure to join the synagogues of the Pharisees. The idea was to exert a psychological “mind control” on the masses in order to tolerate the reign of Herod – born of Idumean and Nabatean descent.
Hi,
This idea seems somewhat conjured from speculation. Do you have any sources to substantiate your claim? The literary program is a psyops? What do you mean?
I was born and brought up in India in a very pious Christian tradition in a non- Catholic Christian church named the Mar Thoma Church. This is an ancient church believed to have been inspired by or established by the Apostle Thomas. I grew up like all my contemporary Christians believing in the Bible but having only extremely superficial knowledge and poor understanding. I would like to study the Bible now at my age (80) in more detail and critically so.
I have been listening to the many podcasts and videos of Bart Ehrman and have been more than inspired to read and learn more for myself.
If I were to study the bible in detail I do need interpretations and cross references and I would very much appreciate getting the names of one or two books, either Bibles with interpretations or anything else that can be helpful in my quest.
In particular I would give great value to anything that Bart might suggest.
Thank you
I would strongly recommend getting the HarperCollins Study Bible, which is an annotated edition that gives introdcutions to issues connected with the scholarly understanding of the Bible (written for non-scholars), compact introductions to each book of the Bible, and notes at the bottom of each page explaining difficult passages/verses/phrases. It’s a great place to start. If you want a kind of textbook on the Bible, you might consider my book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction, 2nd ed., which explains the scholarly views of every book from Genesis to Revelation.
Hello, tabraham. A retired (now deceased) Christian preacher in the USA started a YouTube channel: BIBLEisMARKofBEAST. He said, “The Bible is an idol.” I propose that five groups degraded the authenticity of the Bible. The first group were from Babylon and Persia who arrived in Judea around 520 BCE. This group brought the ideas of Babylon and Persia. They wrote Enoch, Jubilees, The Assumption of Moses and more (including Job and Zechariah). The second group formed when the Seleucid ruler attempted to eliminate the Jewish religion in Judea in 180 BCE. This group split and formed the third group at the EMPTY TOMB of Jesus. I call them the “Q” Community. The fourth group is a very small group in Corinth, Greece who disagreed with the Apostle Paul. Small in number, they wrote forgeries. (The “Q” Community wrote forgeries,also.) The fifth group is the delegates at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. However, the New Covenant/the Finished Work of the Cross is idiot-proof, tamper resistant, and foolproof. The tomb was empty. The Apostle Peter said that the prophecy of Joel was fulfilled 50 days after the Crucifixion of Jesus. Read Romans 2:26-29. Keystone idea. God bless you.
This is highly doubtful because to this day the location of Jesus’s tomb is not very well established. And no, as Dr. Ehrman demonstrated, the so-called tamper resistant new covenant is not so resistant after all.
You can tell the letter from the king is not authentic because it does not conclude with “thank you for your attention to this matter.”
Of interest is the phrase “As the report indicates…” instead of saying “it has been reported to me that…”
What was “the report”? I don’t think there were any sensationalist weekly publications circling the middle east in 33 CE!
Dear Bart,
I just listened to the fascinating conversation you had with
C. J. Cornthwaite: https://youtu.be/ymsdXLIplIM?si=6dh3a3a8OVSskc0P
I must say, it has moved me to buy ‘Love thy Stranger’, the book sounds fascinating!
I feel like I have at least two or three bones to pick with you on the discussion on Atonement. However, I’m going to restrain myself until I’ve read the book….
… Ok – I can’t help myself – in the Levitical instructions for the day of Atonement, the goat that bears the iniquities of Israel is led out into the wilderness and set free – it is not sacrificed (Lev 16:20-22). Yet, in your conversation with Cornthwaite, you characterise Atonement as sacrifice rather than forgiveness. Does not the Levitical scapegoat conflict with this characterisation, where the goat carries away the sins of Israel, and those sins are then pardoned (atoned for)?
I don’t believe I was referencing Leviticus 16 but the atoning sacrifices in the temple.
Ah, the section I was referring to was 25:15-26:10, where you discuss the doctrine of atonement divorced from any specific setting: “The doctrine of atonement is someone’s got to pay” (26:07-26:09). I got the sense that this is your understanding of how atonement works in principle.
For at least the tabernacle era and first temple system (there may have been innovations for the second temple era), there are procedures for atoning sacrifice, and especially for the purification of sin (Lev 5:7). However, when it comes to the collective sins of Israel and the day of atonement ritual, it seems the animal that carries the iniquities of Israel is not killed, but set free.
Under that system, it appears that there was a belief that God could forgive the sins of Israel without having someone, or some animal, pay with their life. Could this be an example of forgiveness-atonement, rather than sacrifice-atonement?
I think the problem is that I’m not talking about how the word atonement gets used in biblical sources. I’m talking about a particular concept that we can call atonement, which is differentiated from another concept that we can call forgiveness. It’s the concepts that I’m interested in rather than the words pepole use.
I think I follow. You conceptualise Atonement as always having a sacrificial element where “someone’s got to pay the price” for it to be effective. When you applied this to the context of post-resurrection disciples, they came to believe Jesus’ crucifixion was a sacrifice for sin – that is, atonement.
I think I’ve found several elements (Rom 8:3, 1 Peter 2:24) that, when brought together, suggest the crucifixion of Jesus served as the moment when God condemned the sins of humanity that had transferred into the body of Jesus. Crucially, however, I don’t think that’s where atonement occurred – the sins are condemned, not forgiven.
Instead, there is a suggestion (1 Cor 15:17) that those condemned sins remained in the corpse of Jesus in the tomb, and for God to raise his Son, God chose to pardon those sins, thereby lifting the death penalty that Jesus was under. The pardoning of sins in the tomb is, in my view, the moment of atonement when the sins are forgiven.
If my reading is correct, then perhaps 1st C Christians believed that whilst there was a condemnation of sins that meant the death of Jesus, the resurrection proved the forgiveness/atonement of sins?
I think for Paul the resurrection did prove the atonement for sins (not forgiveness though). It also showed that the “power of sin” was destroyed: the believer could participate in the liberation from the destroyed power by being united wiht Christ — made one with him in his victory — at their baptistm.
Yes, I agree Paul believed the “power of sin” was destroyed on the cross (Rom 6:6), as Paul believed that is when God condemned sin (Rom 8:3). My suggestion is that this is only the first part of a two-part process of atonement.
Part 1: condemnation
The first part is the condemnation of sin – those sins must be condemned by God, or God is not just. Jesus suffered the penalty for sin – death.
Part 2: forgiveness
However, Jesus did not stay under the death penalty for long, which raises the question, why? My proposal is that for God to raise his Son to life, he had to first pardon the condemned sins Jesus’ body bore, otherwise the death penalty would remain in place. Do you follow the judicial logic?
We see Paul claim the resurrection was essential for sins to be forgiven in 1 Cor 15:17. This is important because if all Christians needed to be free from sin was the death of Jesus, then the resurrection would not play a part in atonement. But for Paul, if Christ was not raised, the Corinthians were “still in your sins.”
Is it known approximately when Edessa would have been converted to (some form of) the Christian faith? Just curious how long a period would have been available for legendary development before Eusebius and the Doctrina Addai.
It may be known, but not by me! I’d assume it never completely converted, despite the legend, but actually don’t know.
I took a look at the account of this letter in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History (the online translation at the New Advent site). This is how Eusebius describes the letters’ provenance:
“You have written evidence of these things taken from the archives of Edessa, which was at that time a royal city. For in the public registers there, which contain accounts of ancient times and the acts of Abgarus, these things have been found preserved down to the present time. But there is no better way than to hear the epistles themselves which we have taken from the archives and have literally translated from the Syriac language in the following manner.”
Given that Eusebius acts convinced of the letters’ authenticity and claims to have taken them from the Edessa archives and translated them himself, do you think Eusebius could be the one that forged them originally?
I doubt it. He gave false reports based on traditions he had heard, but I’ve never seen any indication in his writings that he was just makin’ stuff up.
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
Both letters sound suspiciously based on how Jesus came to be defined after his death…
Were either of the letters signed? It would be interesting to know how Jesus — or whoever wrote the letter on his behalf (or “on his behalf”) — identified himself.
We don’t have the original letters themselves (or any other Christian writings from the ancient world! And virtually no other writings either)
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
Really enjoying your show on Amazon Prime.
I recently saw a “debate” on Youtube between you and some goofball who was asserting an ad populum fallacy as a reason to believe Jesus’s resurrection. It wasn’t so much a debate as it was you, to no avail, trying to explain to him that ad populum is not a historical argument. It was kinda funny, but I really felt for you. I mean, I’m a Christian, but a bad argument is a bad argument.
Somewhere in that debate the alleged quote from Jesus to “make disciples of all nations” came up. You said you didn’t believe Jesus actually said this. So, what do you think Jesus actually believed concerning the gentiles and bringing them in on his movement? I ask because the only place he seems at all concerned with the gentiles is the aforementioned quote at the end of the gospels.
I don’t think Jesus expected there to *be* a “movement” after his death. He thought the kingdom of God was soon to arrive and he would be made the king (the “messiah”) and his followers would rule with him. He did think there would be gentiles in that kingdom — any who lived lives of helping others in need (e.g., Matt. 25:31-45).
Interesting. It’s easy to overlook the imminence (like, RIGHT NOW) of the kingdom when so much theology and so much growth of the Christian movement came after; though Jesus himself arguably didn’t expect or intend it to. Dr. Ehrman I can honestly see why you lost your faith. This is a lot to sift through and a lot to contend with. But I feel I’d be betraying my faith if I didn’t explore these avenues, so I’m happy to be here.
Ah, my loss of faith wasn’t related to my scholarship!