Loading...
I have been doing a thread in response to a reader who asked how we know we have the originals of the books of the Bible. On one hand, the question involves how we know the words the authors originally wrote. I’ve been dealing with that question over a number of posts. But the question has another interesting and less talked about component: what is the “original” for a book that appears to have had chapters or passages added to it here or there? Or when a book appears in fact to have been several books that were later combined into one book even before scribes started copying what we have today?
There are few examples of that in the New Testament, but before dealing with those, I thought it might be useful to mention a less controversial case — less controversial because hardly anyone has read this particular early Christian writing and even fewer people would regard it as sacred Scripture. It is one of the “Apostolic Fathers” (the proto-orthodox writers who produced their work soon after the New Testament period, for the most part) and is known as the Didache (pronounced Did-ah-kay). I have talked about it on the blog before, but it may be most useful to repeat (either to tell or remind you) the basic information about it, before devoting the next post to the issue I’m most interested in for this thread, which is the fact that scholars are widely convinced that what we have now is a scissors and paste job, of three documents being combined into one.
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!
I was quite surprised to find within the Didache a prohibition against abortion, since this topic is nowhere touched on either in the gospels (not surprising) or the other canonical books/letters in the NT. It’s inclusion in the Didache, which seems to be a description of at least some theology and practice of a very early christian community, would seem to indicate that it was also an issue of that time and place. I would be interested in your take on the apparent importance of this issue to early christians, given the lack of canonical commentary anywhere else.
Yes, I’ll be dealing with that in my two-lecture course (this next weekend!), on “When Does Life Begin.” See http://www.bartehrman.com/courses It is indeed interesting and I think there’s an explanation for it. (It’s also found in Barnabas a bit later, again in the “two ways” list of ethical instructions, as in the Didache.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
1) Repent for the Apocalyptic Kingdom is at hand.
2) Judgment and Tribulation in Jerusalem, then,
3) The Apocalyptic Kingdom of God overseen by the Son of Man on earth.
Bart D.E., author of Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet
Conclusion/Chapter 9: The Apocalyptic Teachings of Jesus
For His people, God would intervene 1) to overthrow evil, 2) to overthrow those who gained ascendancy over the Chosen People, and 3) to bring the Kingdom of God to earth.
There would be no more war, no more death.
Steve Campbell
Within Jesus’ generation, the Son of Man would bring in the Kingdom of God and death would stop.
Depart from me into the eternal fire, eternal punishment.
But the blessed will inherit the kingdom, for eternity, and for them, death would stop.
So, the glorious kingdom of the Son of Man would go on for eternity.
Bart D.E.
Conclusion
All that opposes the Kingdom of God would be removed and destroyed.
Jesus did not propound ethics for the just society of the Kingdom, a happier world.
There wasn’t going to be a long haul.
Steve Campbell
Eternity for the righteous is not a/the long haul. I question that.
Question 1: Isn’t the constant quest for `originals’ really a lost cause? Since Matthew and Luke both use Q and Mark, their autographs didn’t contain much original material. The Q documents used in the autographs of Matthew and Luke themselves may have had various revisions and probably their editions of Mark did too. It’s interesting that Mark seems to know a few things that are in Q but not the details (example that Jesus was tempted by Satan, but Mark is unaware of details of that temptation provided in Q). So, there is obviously overlap.
Question 2: How likely do you think it is that John’s gospel was written in Alexandria? The author of John says all the books in the world couldn’t contain everything in the life of Jesus. John’s gospel, 20:30-31, mentions that there are other biographies about Jesus and, since John’s gospel was written by somebody highly competent in Greek and well-versed in Greek philosophy, that would suggest they had access to a relatively good library like the one in Alexandria. Roman antisemitism was quite strong in Alexandria around 90 to 140 CE which dovetails nicely with the antisemitism in John.
1. It completely depends on what you mean by “original.” It is multivalent, so that one has to define what one means in any usage of it. 2. I don’t think there’s any way to know where John was written.
Hello, Bart,
Does Daniel 7:26-27 represent a type of source from which Jesus’ beliefs might have sprung from?
“The court shall sit in judgement” = day of judgement
“To be […] totally destroyed” (regarding the evil kingdom) = the eternal punishment talked of by Jesus
“The kingdoms […] shall be given to the people of the holy ones” = Jesus promising his disciples the ruling of the 12 tribes of Israel
“Everlasting kingdom” = The eternal life
[26] Then the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and totally destroyed. [27] The kingship and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.”
Yes, I think the vision of Daniel 7 was influential on Jesus’ views, and other apocalyptic Jews like him at the time.
I thought I had read that some historical scholars (eg. Raymond Brown) indeed saw the Didache as reflecting and emphasising the fundamental Jewish faith of Jesus and his contemporary followers, rather than a later developing expansion into a “Christian” faith seen in John, and even in the quite early Paul.
Might you comment please.
Certainly parts of the Didache are quite early in the Chrsitian tradition — esp. as seen in the eucharistic prayers. But I’d have to see what you’re referring to specifically about the claims of scholars. Ray Brown almost certainly didn’t think that the Didache as a whole was a historical depiction of the very earliest stages of the Christian movement, let alone represenative of the views of Jesus.
Raymond Brown was indeed a great scholar and remained a priest and loyal follower within the Catholic (Christian) tradition. Nevertheless, he also documents, as one might naturally expect, differing Jesus’ communities of both a Jewish and Christian perspective. Geza Vermes was also a great historical scholar, was once also a Catholic (Christian) priest, but adopted a far more early Jewish interpretation of Jesus and his religion over time. I would tend to support the view that great care may need to be taken in exploring historically any divergence between “the religion of Jesus” versus the “the religion about Jesus” (Christianity). And “Christian Scripture” itself was only considered broadly settled itself some 200 to 300 years later, at a leadership level only, and only after years of bitter disputation.
Hi Bart
In mark jesus brother is called jose but in mattew he is called joseph. So can we know for sure what was the name. The writter of Mart had a tendency to use short form names , or is mark a better source?
Joses is usually thought to be a shorter form of Joseph (kind of like James and Jim?)
Hello Bart
does YWSH mean joseh or josah?
Sorry, I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
I share the opinion of different authors that think the Didache is a document from the Jewish-Christian sect (James, Jerusalem Church, Ebionites), reflecting traditions going back to John Baptist and the Quran community. One revealing aspect is the description of the Eucharist; breaking bread and Kiddush wine blessing by Jewish tradition. It has no references to “This is my body, this is my blood”, that were invented by Paul.
There are some interesting commands in this document:
2:2 “you shall not murder a child, whether it be born or unborn”. The first Christian edit against abortion.
6:3 “Concerning food, do what you are able to do and be on guard against meat offered to idols, for that is to worship dead gods.” A clear opinion on avoiding meat offered to idols. Paul was more liberal.
This is quite morbid, but I wonder whether abortion and infanticide were of particular concern as a result of people’s apocalyptic views. Paul didn’t want people bringing children into a world that was about to end, and he wanted intercourse to be limited to the extent possible. Of course this part isn’t in Paul’s letters, but I can imagine that abortion and infanticide might have been more common amongst early Christians (whether Jewish or Pauline) than in the general population who *didn’t* believe in an imminent apocalypse.
I don’t believe early writings would have been concerned with abstract theoretical issues. I think people were writing about things that were actively happening.
Was there an early Christian text that discussed Spiritual Direction, or the process of pupils learning the Way from teachers in direct one to one relationship? I thought that was in the Didache, but I can’t locate that in the text.
It’s not a topic of discussion in the ealry Christian texgts, so far as I’m aware.
Is there anything in this document instructing people on what to believe about and how to worship God?
Since this document seems to be moving things in a certain direction as you said in the post, I wonder if there’s anything in it pertaining to Jesus in his relationship to God as We Know What Becomes of it. Thank you!
And if it doesn’t say anything I think that the silence on the matter probably says a lot but maybe not:-)
It’s more about how to worship, and how to behave, than about what to believe or theology per se. But not dealing with such things is not necessarily significant. I write thousands of things without mentioning the Bible, my university position, or my blog, but it doesn’t mean I don’t think they are important. It depends on why I’m writing this particular thing.
That makes good sense:-) thank you