(10 votes, average: 4.60 out of 5)
Loading...Did the earliest Christians interpret texts the way people do today? I’m not asking if they always had the same interpretation; I’m asking if their approach to and methods of interpretation were the same. It’s a surprising answer. In particular, the various ways texts got interpreted may not be expected.
I deal with it in my book After the New Testament (2nd edition, Oxford University Press, 2014), the anthology of early Christian texts that I discussed on the blog a week or so ago.
The book presents modern translations of Christian writings from right after the New Testament roughly up to the conversion of Constantine (so, the second and third centuries, 100-300 CE). I organized them according to topics and for each topic I gave an explanatory introduction, then gave a brief introduction for each of the writings themselves as they occurred.
Here is the introduction for the section dealing with how early Christians interpreted the Bible.
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!
Interpretation wars seem to be at the root of all controversy these days. Frankly, it’s exhausting even for an info junky like me. As a fully deconstructed former evangelical pastor, I have weighted Bart’s perspective over the many others I’ve studied since retiring in 2010. I’m excited for the new book.
I would say the ancients only had what was told to them. Talking about weaponizing the Bible, you could tell them anything and they’d have to believe it was in the scripture!
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
You mentioned that Paul used allegorical interpretation in Galatians. Did the writer of Matthew use a Midrashic interpretation of the same nativity events referenced by the writer of Luke? I know that over 40 years ago an evangelical scholar got into hot water over that thought. But does it make sense? And is it an ancient way of interpreting Scripture, or, at least, oral tradition?
Thanks
It kinda depends on what one means by “midrashic.” Some evangelical scholars would claim that an event is explicated in midrashic form (as an exposition of a story in the Hebrew Bible, e.g.,) but that hte event itself really did happen. But if they claim that it is all midrash (pure literary construction made by “riffing” on a well known story), in evangelical circles that traditionally could be seen as a problem. Matthew is certainly portraying Jesus’ birth in close alignment iwth the events that happened at th ebirth of Moses, and to that extent it is certainly midrashic.
Hi, “selection xxx” appears three times. Is it the same xxx? Selection xxx is in the book “After the New Testament”?
xxx #1: Ptolemy’s letter to Flora
xxx #2: Barnabas
xxx #3: Origen
You say Jesus was an excellent interpreter of the Bible. He spoke of the Torah and the Prophets Nevi’im.
Did the Septuagint not include all 11 Kh’tuvim books?
There are references of Jesus to Psalms (David), Solomon (Mt 6:29) and Daniel but Jesus may not have known all of the Kh’tuvim books. Which of these were weakly known by Jesus?
sorry, I’m having trouble following your questions. The Septuagint included all thebooks now in the Hebrw Bible and sevreral more. We don’t know which books that eventually became the canon were known to Jesus — only th eones he quoted. (He certainly appears to have known Daniel)
Jesus speaks of the Torah and the Prophets. He doesn’t speak of the Ketuvin as much as Christians read about the Law and the Prophets, so, it makes sense to wonder why the Ketuvim (Writings) is less emphasized/
Second, It just seemed odd that selection xxx referred to Ptolemy’s letter to Flora, Barnabas, and Origen. I thought maybe xxx was a place holder and the actual references were different. That’s all.
In 1 Cor. 10:4 the word Χριστός is usually, due to Christian doctrine and tradition, is usually translated as a proper noun meaning Christ as the man Jesus. However, if we look at Hebrew usage for the word Meschiach (anointed one) then this could be appropriately applied to any anointed person, e.g. Moses, Abraham, etc. Specifically, this word is used for the high priest in Torah and Cyrus, a non-Jewish Persian king, in Isa. 45:1. When we look at Paul’s writing in this way we can be much more flexible in our translation.
Totally not related to topic.
But this morning on NPR on the Promisekeepers- a group that my brother-in-laws family church before the 1990s, played for the elderly bible study; I found the age appropriate groups too condemning.
Whenever I came back from Shanghai after 1997, I went to that Chinatown church Cumberland Presbyterian decently inviting but not hungry enough for Thy Kingdom Come. https://www.npr.org/2024/08/18/nx-s1-5075053/the-promise-keepers-a-1997-evangelical-mens-group-is-back-with-a-new-agenda
Y2k, I felt blessed to finally go & volunteer at a Promisekeepers Revival. What I heard- the host that let me live there for a few nights- the other guest were talking about life problems, not Godly living stuff!
And an elderly man [leadership?] while many volunteers & more prisoners were vigorously setting up the stadium in the hot sun remarked: [paraphrased] I dislike Union rules. Remarked as the prisoners rested.
I was/am probably too heavenly minded, but I thought these guys are helping you set up for free, better not criticizeI
I thought everything was shallow compared to what devotions/conventions I went to.
2] Evangelical! As of 2016, not Christian as we are wholly accountable to God what we think & do.
Totally selfish!
Thank you Dr Ehrman as you live an accountable & disciplined life!