Loading...In a previous post I talked about a forger from the ancient Greek world who was duped by another forger who intentionally tried to deceive him (with remarkable success and to his great chagrin). As it turns out we have comparable instances within early Christianity, as I discuss in my book Forgery and Counterforgery (Oxford University Press). Here’s what I say there, edited a bit:
******************************
This ironic phenomenon of a deceiver being deceived has rough parallels in the Christian tradition. One case to consider is the late fourth-century Apostolic Constitutions, a so-called “church order” allegedly written by none other than the apostles of Jesus (hence its name), but in reality produced by someone simply claiming to be the apostolic band, living three hundred years after they had been laid to rest in their respective tombs.
This book is patched-together composite of three earlier writings that we still have, the third-century Didascalia Apostolorum, which makes up books 1-6 of the text; the Didache (one of the Apostolic Fathers), which is found in book 7; and the Apostolic Tradition, wrongly attributed to Hippolytus, in book 8. Since this author has taken over earlier writings without acknowledgment, he could well be considered a plagiarist by ancient, as well as modern, standards. Ancients did talk about (and condemn) plagiarism! Consider, for example, the words of Vitruvius:
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!
Hi Bart I have a question. First a comment on this post, you can skip to the question if you want.
I just am yet again amused at how much continuity mistakes seemed to be a struggle for ancient authors and forgers. As much of a valuable labor as writing was back then you would think they would be a bit more careful with works like this.
My question: I was just listening to a talk you gave about the oral tradition that must have preceded the gospels and it all makes perfect sense to me but I’ve seen some scholars push back on the “game of telephone” analogy that I feel like would almost certainly happen and very logically could contribute to us going from the historical jesus to some of the later legendary accounts recorded in the gospels and apocrypha. So I wanted to get your opinion.
In your opinion is it apt to say a bit of the game of telephone was likely going on? Stories passing from person to person changing and being exaggerated as they imperfectly transmit from person to person and group to group orally up to Q and gospels?
Thanks Bart! Happy retirement!
If the “telephone game” is where one person tells a story to another, who tells it to another, who tells it to another, and on and on, until when it gets, say, to the 15th person, and the story has changed significantly, then yes, of course, that’s exactly what was happening in early Christianity.
The Christian faith was being spread by word of mouth from one person to another (was there some other way? logically no; empirically – based on our records – no). . Most people couldn’t read, and we have no evidence of “authoritative Gospels” in circulation in the early decades when Xty moved from being a group of a couple of dozen people to being thousands. How did these people convert? When someone told them stories about Jesus.
How did that someone hear the stories? From someone else. How did that one hear? From someone else. If a story started in, say, Jerusalem in 33 CE, and was being told in, say, Ephesus in the year 68 — how many intermediaries were there (among other things, it has been told for some times in ARamaic then translated into Greek to be told and retold) And the thing isn’t even written down until, say, 85 or 90. How ELSE could Xty be spreading apart from people telling stories about Jesus??
The main problem with the Telephone Game analogy (it’s an analogy, not a precise description) is not what people sometimes today say (“Hey, it wasn’t like that!”) but just the opposite. The situatoin was FAR more diverse and complex than a game of telephone game played one sunny afternoon at a birthday party among ten kids speaking from the same socio-economic class living in the same culture in the same location speaking the same language. (Even when they were written down the stories got changed drastically. Read the trial before Pilate in Mark and John; or the birth narratives of Mathew and Luke; or the sayings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount adn the Gospel of Thomas!)disabledupes{7c7baf3a0d4cfc24078df1cca4ecd237}disabledupes
I have a second question I wanted to get your opinion on.
In Mark 7 9-13 is the author of mark saying Jesus is affirming the deuteronomy law of stoning rebellious sons to death and chastising the pharisees for violating the law and not carrying out this punishment?
Every apologist says of course not. If not what is going on here?
Thanks again Bart!
I don’t think the passage indicates that Jesus believed in stoning disobedient children, no. He doesn’t use it to that end. He uses it to show that the Law takes honoring the parents very seriously, but the Pharisaic rules set that principle aside when they promote their own rules.
Good morning. Happy Valentine’s day. Could you clarify this statement for me please. ” Apostolic Tradition, wrongly attributed to Hippolytus.” I have used this work more than once and have always attributed it to Hippolytus. Why are you saying it is wrongly attributed to him? I’ve never heard this before.
The old standard view was that it was written by Hippolytus. Scholarship over the past several decades has argued the the evidence cited for that has been misinterpreted. It involves the relationship of an inscription found on a statue in Rome that was used in the ealry 20th century to associate Hippolytus with the text but that is now often said not to be referring to him. You cand read up for it here, if you’re interested: Ashbrook Harvey, Susan; Hunter, David G. (2008). The Oxford handbook of early Christian studies. Oxford University Press. p. 430.
Would you consider the authors of Matthew and Luke to have plagiarized Mark?
I don’t think that’s an appropriate term (I discuss the issue in my book Forgery and Counterforgery), though it’s a related phenomenon. “Plagiarism” is when one named author reproduces writing of another named author and claims it as his/her own. That’s not happening with the Synoptics since they are all anonymous.
I don’t think that’s an appropriate term (I discuss the issue in my book Forgery and Counterforgery), though it’s a related phenomenon. “Plagiarism” is when one named author reproduces writing of another named author and claims it as his/her own. That’s not happening with the Synoptics since they are all anonymous.
In my opinion, the “Q” content of Matthew and Luke is indicative of the “Q” Community. This group of Jews fabricated the “Q” content. The “Q” Community wrote the Gospel of Matthew. Luke (a Gentile) interviewed Jews before he began to write ACTS and before he met Paul. However, Peter’s contact with Cornelius and Peter in Antioch revealed that Jews avoided social contact with Gentiles. Luke was interviewing members of the “Q” Community. The “Q” Community emerged from its parent group: the 180 BCE Group that formed when the Seleucid ruler attempted to eliminate the Jewish religion in Judea in 180 BCE. The “Q” Community existed parallel with the Jewish followers in the chapters of ACTS (because the 180 BCE Group existed parallel with the Zealots, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees). The 180 BCE Group were the ancient Essenes of Flavius Josephus. Dr. Norman Golb wrote that the Essenes did not write the Dead Sea Scrolls. Michael Baigent wrote that the Zealots did. The “Q” Community “ate its own tail” and either became the ancient Gnostics or joined the ancient Gnostics. “John of Patmos” was a member of the “Q” Community. 2nd Timothy, 2nd Peter, Jude, both Thessalonians letters.
The author(s) of the Apostolic Constitutions certainly did some homework on the early bishops, naming James, Symeon, and Judas, the son of James for Jerusalem, Zaccheus, Cornelius and Theophilus for Caesarea, Euodius and Ignatius for Palestine, etc. in chapter 46. It seems that this document has been often used as a ‘reliable’ source for identifying these early Bishops. Is there any reason to place any reliable historical value on these early bishop assignments? The names on the bishop list seem to try too hard to use ‘familiar names’ from the gospels. Or is this the only available source available for this historical information?
It makes me think of how ‘fragile’ the foundation of Christianity is. From one aspect, it boils down to:
Gospels + Acts (anonymous)
Authentic letters of Paul – a guy whose authority hinges on his own claim to have spoken with Jesus/God/Holy Spirit.
And then the rest are most likely forgeries, except for Revelation – which I wouldn’t put much stalk in.
So at the end of the day …… Christianity = stories from a bunch of random, unknown dudes.
Going a little deeper with that train of thought, it seems that Abrahamic religions are based on little more than random dudes claim to have spoken with God, or are speaking on behalf of God. And I would include Jesus as one of the random dudes. Just one of many at that time who claimed to speak for god.
I know people don’t like the ‘random’ reference, but they were all just human beings with no special insight to god. The fact that they became influential or started as influential doesn’t make them any less random or more authoritative / reliable.
I happen to know that they are all false – because I spoke with God and she told me.
You have said previously that you do not believe the historical Jesus performed miracles (in the sense that he had supernatural powers), partly because it was common for figures like Jesus to do the same sorts of feats, and that it was a essentially an accepted genre convention to give the special human special powers from God, in this form of literature.
I agree; I don’t think anyone ever, has had or will have superpowers. But, are these *entirely* fictional creations of later Christian writers?
Could it not also be that Jesus was a charlatan? That he *did* perform ‘miracles’, but employed human trickery to get people to believe in them? The Wedding at Cana or Walking on the Water read like descriptions of a David Copperfield routine.
At the very least the historical Jesus seems like a *little* bit of a charismatic person who knew how to put on a show.
Is there any evidence one way or the other, or only speculation?
Hello BradGranath. I have wondered the same thing – why people do not consider the possibility that Jesus orchestrated or staged ‘miracles’ for the purpose of gaining attention. There are countless examples of modern-day ‘healers’ gaining great wealth and opulence from the donations of millions of gullible followers.
Paul wrote of miracles associated with the movement in Galatians 3:5 (48 CE), 1 Corinthians 12:10 28-29 (53 CE), 2 Corinthians 12:12 (55 CE), and Romans 15:19 (56 CE). Justin Martyr complained in “Dialogue with Trypho, 69.7” (160 CE) that Jews of that day called Jesus a “magician and deceiver of the people.” The Jewish Talmud accused “Jesus the Nazarene for sorcery and enticing Israel to idolatry.” A Roman philosopher, Celsus, wrote in “The True Doctrine” (175 CE) that Jesus’ miracles were the result of sorcery, mirroring Talmudic references. It seems likely, public ‘miracles’ were a part of the actual Jesus movement – why not staged? There is a tenth century Syriac version of Testimonium Flavianum (93 CE) that appears to be untainted by Christian modifications but still refers to “recounted wonders.”
Just in reading the dust jacket for Jesus the Magician, it occurs to me that the very concept of a ‘Magician’ who did *not* have a spiritual/supernatural source of power may not have occured to almost anyone at the time.
Even today, entertainers who state out loud that they do not have supernatural abilities are believed anyway to have the very powers they deny.
How much more so in an ancient world without Penn & Teller?
In my pre-High School church. They taught us Jesus did not use his divine powers while living on earth- Magic is a great explanation!
Yes, there have been many people claiming that Jesus was a charlatan or a magician, from the 2nd century to the 21st. The classic on this topic is Morton Smith’s book, Jesus the Magician. My view is that the reports were all rumors and legends, not actual events.
The “Q” Community fabricated the Bethlehem Nativity narrative, the End of Days narrative, the Return of Jesus narrative, and both the unbelievable miracles (walking on the water, calming the storm) and the inconsequential miracles (Cana wedding). They were fabricating a narrative in order to fit their worldview before Jesus emerged as the protege of John the Baptist upriver on the Jordan River in Samaria. Their worldview began its synthesis in 180 BCE when the Seleucid ruler attempted to eliminate the Jewish religion in Judea in 180 BCE. Already, religious ideas from Persia had returned with the Babylonian Captives. The Book of Zechariah was accepted into the canon. Enoch and the Assumption of Moses were not accepted. Daniel was accepted. Zoroasterism predicted the arrival of The Prophet. (Buddhism predicted the Return of the Buddha. Buddhist missionaries arrived in Egypt in 250 BCE.) The fabricated narratives of the “Q” Community dominated the Gospels. “John of Patmos” was a member of the “Q” Community. Pseudepigraphal forgeries: 2nd Timothy, 1st & 2nd Thessalonians, 2nd Peter, Jude, and the addendum of 1st Peter. Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and the Zoroaster Prophet and the Return of the Buddha according to the “Q” Community.