Loading...I am pleased to announce that I will be doing another online course, the second in the series: How Scholars Read the Bible. The first, if you recall, was a six-lecture course on Genesis. This one will be an eight-lecture course called: The Unknown Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
As with all the courses I do online, this one will NOT be in connection with the blog per se – it is part of my separate venture (Bart Ehrman Professional Services) that you can find at my personal website http://www.bartehrman.com. I am announcing it here on the blog because I know some of blog members will be interested (and some would be rather aggravated if I didn’t mention it….).
I will be giving the course live on Saturday August 6 and Sunday August 7 (four 30-minute lectures each day; each day’s session followed by a live Q&A). You don’t need to come to the live sessions to purchase the course; those who do come will also receive the recorded version.
I see this as an unusually important course. As I suppose all of us know, the Bible is the most widely read and revered book in the history of Western civilization. The Gospels are the most widely read and revered books of the Bible – not just among Christians (well over two billion of them!) but also among others who are interested in the historical Jesus, the beginnings of Christianity, the cultural importance of the Christian Scriptures, and … and some people who are just curious.
Scholars, of course, have studied the Gospels intently for centuries. New approaches developed during the Enlightenment when historical modes of interpretation started to emerge. The past fifty years have seen important developments based not only on archaeological and manuscript discoveries but also on new literary approaches, modes of analysis, and deeper understandings of the world of antiquity. Scholars, of course, have tools not available to most lay readers – including access to the ancient languages (Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and Aramaic are all important); wide knowledge of Greek culture; the history of the Roman empire; the context of second-temple Judaism; new modes of literary analysis; and lots of other things.
The real shame is that most people have little or no idea what scholars have learned about the Gospels – and even more, what evidence they have adduced to support their views.
This course is designed to explain in layperson’s terms what historical scholars have come to know about the four Gospels and, more important, why they find their views persuasive. Here are some of the questions I will be addressing:
- When did scholars start to realize that the Gospels could be approached as historical documents, not only documents of faith? And how did that realization affect the way they interpreted the books?
- Some readers assume the Gospels are historically reliable biographies of Jesus; others think they are purely legendary, a set of pious fairy tales. What do most historical scholars think and why?
- Scholars often date Mark as the first Gospel, around 70 CE, and John as the last, around 95 CE. That would mean the Gospels were written 30-65 years after the death of Jesus. But how do they come up with those dates? Why not put the Gospels in the 40s? Or in the 130s?
- If the Gospels were written that long after the fact, what does that say anything about their reliability? Anything? Where would their authors have gotten their information, and how can we know? Did they based their accounts on earlier written or did they rely only oral traditions that had been passed on by word of mouth for years and decades?
- Are the Gospels based on eyewitness testimony? If so, would that make them reliable? If not, would it make them unreliable?
- What do we actually know about oral cultures and how they preserved their traditions? Do people living in oral cultures work diligently to preserve their traditions accurately, since they cannot write them down for posterity? Alternatively, do they lack any concern at all for accuracy? Do they define accuracy in the same way we do, as those living in written cultures?
- Is the point of finding contradictions in the Gospels simply to show we can’t trust them? Or is there some kind of upside? That is, is there any positive value in knowing that the Gospels are often at odds? Are there ways in which recognizing their differences actually opens up new vistas of interpretation and helps make the different Gospel accounts come alive?
These and many other topics will be on the slate. If you’re interested in coming and/or in getting the course, you can get more information here: www.bartehrman.com/gospels
The cost for the course (whether you decide to hear it live or not) is $53.95. BUT there is an early-bird special until July 27 of $47.95 (save 6 bucks!). AND there is a discount for blog members: use the code BLOG5 and save another 5 bucks – so $42.95. Even though this event is not connected with the blog, a portion of the proceeds will go to the blog’s charities.
I think this is an unusually important and interesting topic. I hope you can join us!
Hi Dr Ehrman,
I have a general question not tied to this post (your about section says to just ask them anywhere).
Why are Luke-Acts commonly dated to the same time? I get they have the same author, but so do the authentic Pauline epistles and those potentially have a 16-year time gap (i’ve seen as early as 48 CE for the very earliest to the 64 CE for the last). Is there a particular reason many assume that gLuke-Acts were written back to back? Is there any piece of evidence going against the idea that, for example, gLuke may have been written around 90 CE and Acts around 105 CE? The opening of Acts always implies to me that Theophilus has read the first account, and some amount of time has passed, and now Acts is being written.
My sense is that no one thinks they are precisely contemporary, but that everyone agrees Luke was written first, that Acts was by the same author, that it was written later, but probably not a *lot* later since it appears to have been planned as part of a two-volume work from the outset. So Acts may not have been published, say, the same year but as soon as the author finished it. Acts 1 doesn’t so much indicate that Theophilus has read the first work as that the author has written it and is not continuing the story ,in my reading. Both books now are being dated later by a number of scholars, to around 120 cE. (On the theory that hte author was influenced by the writings of Josephus)
What makes us think it was planned as a two volume work from the outset? Certainly by the time Acts is being written, the author indeed does intend for it to be the second volume, the address to Theophilus indicates as such. But does anything in gLuke indicate that as of the time he wrote it, he was planning on a second volume? I totally get the Acts used Josephus thing, but many people seem to be using that as evidence that gLuke must postdate 100 and I’m not seeing there reasoning why. It seems to be perfectly plausible that the gospel may have been written around late 80s/early 90s, then Acts written around a decade to two decades later with Josephus as a source.
So what is there that makes people think this was planned to be a two-volume work from the outset? I don’t really see any evidence either way, whether they were written back-to-back or whether Acts was a sequel written, for example, 8-10 years later.
You know, that’s a *really* good question. When I first read it I thought I knew the answer, then I thought I could remember the answer, and I ended up being wrong both times. I need to think about it a bit more. The issue is: is there anything in the Gospel which necessarily looks forward to something that will later be covered in Acts. Hmm… Good question. I’ll think about it.
I am still flying after today’s Q&A!
Re your comment above about a 120 CE dating (which you mentioned at today’s wonderful webinar), I get why scholars would think that the author of Luke is influenced by Josephus, but imo, the author of Luke and Josephus might have had access to the same texts as *Nicolaus of Damascus*.
How?
Paul’s a Herodian kinsman. Nicolaus is the Herodian librarian-historian. Scholarly consensus is that Josephus relied on Nicolaus and his resources a lot.
Paul may be likely Herod-adjacent without having the “greetings my Herodian kinsman” add weight to that:
1. Rare Roman citizenship. 2. Rarer (for being a Hellenic Jew) Roman-esque rhetorical devices. He might have even spent time like, in Rome with the growing Herods. It was normal for children of educated folks to be raised with the royal court.
Like, Paul the total Instagram confessor, gives us no background, when family was so important to that society?
Not that being a Herodian would have been required to have access to Nicolaus’ works or library. Even Jesus Son of the Tekton had Herodian connects through Chuza the, yay, Nabataean. Herod’s steward in Luke 8:2-3.
I’m biased but think the dating should be mega early.
“The opening of Acts always implies to me that Theophilus has read the first account, and some amount of time has passed, and now Acts is being written.”
My understanding is that “Theophilus” (“friend of God” or “loved by God” in Greek) may not refer to an actual person, but to any Christian who may be reading it.
Looking forward to this…
I noticed something about the Egerton Gospel, and I’m wonder if you think the same way about this. In the controversy about paying taxes, his answer in the Egerton version is entirely different from his answer in the synoptic parallels. There’s no asking to see a denarius and no often cited zinger, “Give to Caesar that which are Caesars’ and to God that which are God’s”. But I couldn’t understand why he’d leave that sequence out – until it occurred to me that this response wouldn’t really work the same way in Egerton’s version. In the Egerton version, the question is about paying taxes to Kings generally, not Caesar (or the Emperor) specifically, as in Mark’s version.
My thought is that this shows clear Markan redaction of an earlier controversy story. There must have been an earlier tradition (that Egerton preserves) about whether it is lawful to pay taxes to Kings, which contained different responses, and Mark’s rendering of it is his own, creative spin on that story.
I wonder what you think about this and if you think this is likely?
Yes, this is the third fragment that we have of the Gospel. Oh boy we wish we had the whole thing! My view is that Mark and Egerton have two different versions of teh story, but that it’s impossible to say that one necessarily was a redaction of the other (that is, that one of the authors necessarily knew the actual writing of the other). This is a s tory that certainly must have circulated for decades before anyone wrote it down (Mark being our first known author to do so), and it would have been known in different forms in different communities, given how oral traditions change over time and place. I think the author of Egerton simply knew a different version of it.
Prof.Ehrman
Thank you very much for the webinar. I don’t understand how you do all that you do. You are larger than life.
I would have asked a “Paul” question but was shy, sensing how knowledgeable everybody is.
So, here: how do scholars decide how much Paul knew about Jesus’ sayings? For once, he argued with Peter, who knew what Jesus said. Secondly, Paul prosecuted early Christians ( In Rome or Israel?) , and therefore knew their convictions . Since his prosecutions were before he himself proclaimed it was all about x and y, it seems likely that those early Christians were ” Jesus Christians” and not yet ” Christ Christians”, and what they relayed had a lot to do with the historic Jesus.
For these and other reasons, how did Paul not know that Jesus had declared that not one little Yod of the Torah was to be changed? Did he not know or he didn’t care?
As for the new course, where do I sign?
Reading Acts now, as you recommended.
Yes I’d say it’s *possible* that Paul knew a lot more about what Jesus’ taught than what he indicates in his letters, and many people think that it’s probable. The problem is that there is no way to show it — only to point out that given his connections with Cephas and with the Chrisitians he was persecuting makes it very hard to believe that he didn’t know *something* more. But how much more? There’s no way to know. The very odd thing is not only that he doesn’t cite Jesus’ teachings much (just three or four times!) but that when he *does* cite them it is always to drive home a point he wants to make with Jesus’ own authority. But if that was his modus operandi — there were *lots* of places where he could have done the same thing if he had actually known the relevant sayings of Jesus. But he doesn’t do it then. That’s a reason for thinking he did not know a lot of them. He really does seem to be interested almost exclusively on Jesus’ death and resurrection…. disabledupes{535bb8c32bf5b334bb5fbef16e54946a}disabledupes
Many thanks!
We cannot know what Paul knew then.
So I am now turning my attention to Paul’s conversion and what would have caused it.
We can know historically that he suffered physical trauma falling from his horse, most likely a serious concussion that brought temporary blindness and hallucinations.
Guilt for prosecuting and executing Christians is the most common cause cited . Thus he was much affected by the notion of Christ as the sacrificial martyr erasing all sin.
Next to that, a third reason, could have been the fear of death ( Judaism did not offer much confort there) which the resurrection would have assuaged.
Lastly, don’t laugh, he was a very short and ugly man. His life must have had its share of bitterness, in a society where the appearance of strong manhood was important and decisive. This can explain his disdain for marriage , even as he advocated it . and his contempt for women. Christ Jesus the Lord of Glory and Power was a magnificent image he could fuse himself to.
Is there a book worth reading on the subject?
Nearly any life of Paul will deal with his conversion. The real difficulty is that most peoples’ views about it come from the narratives of the book of Acts (chs. 9, 22, 26), which are internally inconsistent and in many ways to not coincide with what Paul says (Galatians 1); another source for people’s imagination is later works of art (e.g., Caravvagio’s painting of the moment of conversion that shows him falling from a horse; none of the New Testament accounts (either Paul or Acts) mentions a horse.
Purchased and looking forward to it! Thank you for all the great content, Bart!
Thanks for posting about your upcoming class Dr Ehrman; Bart. Looking forward to participating and hopefully I can manage the time zone differences to be able to catch the live settings.
Can I throw in a quick question?
The NT was written in Greek… The Greeks raised and ate pork/swine… while the rest of the Middle East and the Levant/Palestine saw pork as being unclean. The few swine that are archaeologically found from ancient Palestine originate from Greece – (according to field scientists)
How is it that Jesus cast the demons out a man (Mark and Luke)… or two men (Matthew) at Gergesa; eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, and caused them to enter a large herd; about 2000 according to Mark of farmed swine… and I am sure you know how the rest of the story goes.
Given the dietary restrictions of the region and the archaeological discoveries of food waste, has this story been afforded any scrutiny by historical scholars?
I have many questions like the above and I think that your course will enhance my understanding into how you; scholars approach the Gospels.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge thus far.
(This post edited to fit 200 words)
Yup, it’s a source of fascination among bible readers. What are those pigs doing there in Israel?!? The passage is normally taken not as a historical event but having important symbolic significance. Most interpretations are based on the point that the demons inside the man are called “Legion.” A legion, of course, is a unit of soldiers in the Roman army. And so one common interpretation is taht Jesus rids the Jew of the Romans and kills those dirty pigs — that is, that the story is meant to show what Jesus is going to do when he returns to destroy all those who are opposed to God and afflicting his people.
Thanks Dr (or should it be Professor?) Ehrman… Interesting. Pity Jesus forgot to return to make good on the situation.
Dr., Professor, Bart, Slacker — they all work.disabledupes{66e913e2fc4655fb9454960adef779c4}disabledupes
You would fit in well with the rural ‘boomer’ and older generation down here in kangaroo land.
Down to earth… that is.
Oh … and please excuse my multiple post… of the same thoughts… on your thread concerning if it would be possible to give up everything and follow Jesus… the net went hay wire when going to submit my thoughts.
And… I am all signed up for the course. Looking forward to it.