BDEhrman, Author at The Bart Ehrman Blog - Page 31 of 207

About BDEhrman

Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he has served as the director of graduate studies and chair of the Department of Religious Studies.

Why Textual Variants Matter Even for Those Who Do NOT Think the Bible is Infallible

In this thread I am discussing why it matters that there are so many variants in our surviving manuscripts of the New Testament. It does not matter because there are any “fundamental Christian doctrines” at stake, per se, but for other reasons. As I sketched in my previous post, it should matter for anyone who believes that God gave the very words of the Bible, since the facts that we don’t *have* the original words in some cases and that in many other cases the words themselves are in doubt, should call that belief into question. (I should point out that with the Hebrew Bible we are in MUCH worse shape in knowing what anything like the “original” -- whatever that might be – was. The textual situation there is really quite dire.) The second group that the variants should interest would include just about anyone -- whether scholar, student, or general reader – who is interested in knowing what the various authors of the Bible had to say about this, that, or the other [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T13:07:42-04:00June 15th, 2024|New Testament Manuscripts|

Why Bible-Believing Christians Care About Textual Variants

In my previous post I began a discussion of why textual variants (that is, different wordings of the verses of the NT) found in the manuscripts might matter to someone other than a specialist who spends his or her life studying such things. Most of the hundreds of thousands of variations are of very little importance for anything, as most people – even specialists – would admit. Only a minority really matter. And none of these seriously threatens any significant, traditional, Christian doctrine. But I’ve argued that this should not be the criterion used to establish their importance. Lots of things in life are important that have nothing to do with traditional Christian doctrines! I would say that the variations in the manuscripts of the New Testament should seem important to three groups of people. If you’re not in one of these groups, then they probably are not all that important to you! (1) Fundamentalist and conservative evangelical Christians who believe that the Bible is an inerrant or infallible revelation from God, with no mistakes [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T13:07:42-04:00June 13th, 2024|New Testament Manuscripts|

If Textual Variants Don’t Change Any Key Doctrines — Then Who Cares?

I've been providing a thread on the issue of why it's so hard to know if we have an "original" text of any of the writings of the New Testament, both because some of the books are cut-and-pasted versions of earlier texts and because we don't have any of the originals of the texts but only later copies with lots of differences among them. I'll end the thread with three posts that asking why it might matter to anyone if we don't know the exact words of the New Testament. Here's a succinct question I received on the matter a good while ago. QUESTION: How significant are these variants? I know they vary but is there anything fundamental to Christendom that would be fundamentally flawed like the virgin birth or the resurrection that does not take place in these variants that are of material value? RESPONSE: It’s a really good question. I don’t know if this reader is a conservative Christian or has read what my conservative evangelical critics have said about this – as [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T13:07:42-04:00June 12th, 2024|New Testament Manuscripts|

Serious Hypothetical (And Realistically Possible) Problems With Copies of Paul’s Letters

In trying to figure out what it even means to talk about the “original” text of Philippians (was it what Paul meant to dictate? Was it what he did dictate, if it was different from what he intended? Was it what the scribe wrote even if it was different from what Paul dictated? Was it what Paul corrected after he saw what the scribe incorrectly wrote? Was it the fresh copy that the scribe made even if it was different from the corrected version Paul gave him? What happens if in fact Philippians is two letters that have been spliced together by a later editor, as many scholars believe, rather than just one letter – is the “original” the two different letters originally sent or the spliced together version that Paul did not create but someone else did? Etc. etc.), in trying to figure all this out, several readers have suggested that the easiest way to look at it is that the “original” of Philippians is the letter Paul sent to Philippi, whatever [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T13:07:42-04:00June 9th, 2024|New Testament Manuscripts, Paul and His Letters|

Even More Snarly Problems If Paul Dictated His Letters

I have been talking about the problems in knowing what the “original” text of Philippians is. Even with the following brief review, the comments I will be making in this post will, frankly, probably not make much sense if you do not refresh your memory from my previous two posts. Here I will be picking up where I left off there. We have seen that knowing what the original of Philippians is complicated by the facts that: 1) The letter appears originally to have been two letters, so that it’s hard to know whether the original of each separate letter is to be the original or if the final edited version, which Paul himself did not produce, is the original; 2) Paul dictated his letters, and the scribe who wrote down his dictation would typically have made a fresh copy of the letter after Paul had made a few corrections – so which is the original: what the scribe originally wrote or the fresh copy he made after the corrections? 3) And [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T13:07:41-04:00June 8th, 2024|New Testament Manuscripts, Paul and His Letters|

If Paul Dictated His Letters, How Can We Know What He Said?

I have been asked to comment on whether we can get back to the “original” text of Paul’s letter to the Philippians, and I have begun to discuss the problems not just of getting *back* to the original, but also of knowing even what the original *was*. In my previous post I pointed out the problems posed by the fact that Philippians appears to be two letters later spliced together into one. And so the first problem is this: is the “original” copy the spliced together copy that Paul himself did not create? Or is the “original” the product that Paul himself produced – the two letters that are not transmitted to us in manuscript form any longer, to which, therefore, we have no access (except through the version edited by someone else)? But there are more problems. Here I’ll detail them, in sequence as they occur to me. In what I am going to be saying now, I will simplify things by assuming that – contrary to what I’ve been arguing [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T13:07:41-04:00June 6th, 2024|New Testament Manuscripts, Paul and His Letters|

Did Paul Have a Brain Disorder? (And did it help him?!) Platinum post by Douglas Wadeson MD

Have you been waiting for a controversial Platinum post? Wait no longer. Here is another intriguing contribution by Doug Wadeson, who applies his medical expertise to a historical question about the Apostle Paul. What do you think? REMEMBER: If you are a Platinum member you too can send in a guest post on a topic of interest -- whatever you like connected with the Blog? Wanna put an idea out there? Go for it!! ********************* The apostle Paul is the most influential figure in Christianity after Jesus, and some would even argue that because Paul was so effective in fleshing out Christian doctrine about Jesus and then spreading it into the pagan world that he was even more influential than Jesus himself. But is it possible that Paul had a brain disorder which actually facilitated his singular position in the history of Christianity? Let’s look at certain aspects of Paul’s life. Paul did a lot of writing, particularly to friends and churches, so that we have a number of his letters preserved for us. [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T13:07:27-04:00June 3rd, 2024|Paul and His Letters|

REMINDER: My Webinar — When Does Life Begin? The Status of the Unborn in the Biblical Tradition

In case you missed it last time, here's my announcement of the course I'll be doing on this coming Sunday. It's a difficult, very complicated, and often incredibly important topic. I hope you can come! ************************ I'm pleased to announce that I will be doing a new two-lecture course on a rather timely topic, When Does Life Begin: The Status of the Unborn in the Biblical Tradition. The course is not connected with the Blog per se, except insofar as I'm doing it and many of you might be interested. For more information and registration, go to http://www.bartehrman.com/life Even if you can't come to the live lectures, you will be able to get a recording of the course to watch at your leisure. Here's a description of the course: ********************** The issue of abortion is one of the most divisive controversies in our country. In many ways it comes down to a very basic question: When Does Life Begin? At conception? Later in gestation? When the fetus is viable? At birth? For many people the question is [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T13:07:41-04:00May 30th, 2024|Public Forum|

Is Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians Actually FIVE Letters?

In my previous post I tried to show why most critical scholars think that the letter of 2 Corinthians is actually two different letters that have been spliced together. When I was back in graduate school, I learned – to my surprise – that there were scholars who thought that in fact 2 Corinthians was made up of five different letters, all spliced together. At first that struck me as a bit crazy, but as I looked at the evidence I began to see that it made a good bit of sense. I’m not completely committed to that idea, but I’m inclined toward it. My sense is that this is the view of a sizeable minority of critical scholars, but I have no data, only anecdotal evidence, to back that up. In any case, what matters more is what you yourself might think of it. I won’t be giving the evidence in full, but here is how I lay it out for students to consider in my textbook on the New Testament for undergraduates. To [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T13:07:27-04:00May 26th, 2024|Paul and His Letters|

Is Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians Actually TWO Letters?

How many of the early Christian writings consist of scissors-and-paste jobs, where later editors cut up earlier writings and stitched them together into one continuous work, so that what we have now are not the originals but only the final edited version? Are there books like that, for example, in the New Testament? In my last two posts I discussed how the early Christian writing called the Didache is that kind of thing, with three documents artificially combined into the 16-chapter book we now have. And what about in the New Testament? The first thing to stress is that the cut-and-paste approach to “editing” a book is not quite the same as what we find more commonly, for example among the Gospels. When Matthew “used” the Gospel of Mark, he took over many of its stories; in some instances he rearranged their order, changed their wording, added material to what he found, took away material, and so on. That’s not what we’re talking about now. Now we’re talking about an author literally cutting up a [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T13:07:26-04:00May 25th, 2024|Paul and His Letters|

Three Early Christian Writings Spliced Together Into One: The Didache

Is it possible that some of the writings of the New Testament are cut-and-paste jobs, where several writings have been combined together, instead of one writing done by one author at one time? I decided to get to this question by referring to another early Christian writing, outside the New Testament, for which this is almost certainly the case, the Didache (Did-ah-kay). Yesterday I reminded (or minded) y'all what the Didache is all about. Today I want to explain why scholars widely think that our surviving version is in fact several texts that were written by different authors that have been cut and pasted together. Here is what I say about the matter in my (Greek-English) edition of the of Didache in the first volume of the Apostolic Fathers in the Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press, 2003). ****************************** The Didache obviously addresses several discrete topics: the two paths, the “church order” (which may comprise two distinct units, one on liturgical practices and the other on the treatment of itinerant “apostles and prophets”), and the [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T13:07:26-04:00May 23rd, 2024|Early Christian Writings (100-400 CE)|

An Important Early Christian Writing

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 [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T13:07:27-04:00May 22nd, 2024|Early Christian Writings (100-400 CE), Public Forum|

The Silencing of Women: 1 Cor. 14:34-35 as an Interpolation
Gallery
The Silencing of Women: 1 Cor. 14:34-35 as an Interpolation

Paul and His Letters, Women in Early Christianity

The Silencing of Women: 1 Cor. 14:34-35 as an Interpolation

In my previous post I began to address the question of whether we have the original text of 1 Cor. 14:34-35, where Paul tells women that they must be silent in the churches. I first had to show that the similar passage of 1 Tim. 10-15 is not by Paul, because 1 Timothy itself was not written by Paul. This is a standard view among scholars, that Paul did not write 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus; I won't get into the reasons here, but if you look up Timothy or Titus as a word search on the blog you'll find posts that address the matter. Apart from that, doesn't Paul say something similar in his undisputed letters, in the harsh words of 1 Cor 14:34-35? Indeed, this passage is *so* similar to that of 1 Tim 2:11-15, and so unlike what Paul says elsewhere, that many scholars are convinced that these too are words that Paul himself never wrote, words that were later inserted into the letter of 1 Corinthians by a scribe who [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T13:07:26-04:00May 21st, 2024|Paul and His Letters, Women in Early Christianity|

Knowing Paul’s Views of Women…

I recently received this important question from a reader that is closely related to the current thread about whether we have the "original" text of the books of the New Testament. QUESTION: The question was specifically about about women's roles in the church based on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. “Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is something they want to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” The questioner said: I was raised in a strict fundamentalist sect where this was actually practiced. The women were allowed to sing but that was it. According to the Harper-Collins Study Bible some think that this was a later, non-Pauline addition to the letter, more in keeping with the Pastoral letters. Is this the common view among scholars? RESPONSE: I've dealt with this issue before on the blog, and think it's good to deal with it again. Two preliminary [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T13:07:26-04:00May 19th, 2024|Paul and His Letters, Women in Early Christianity|

When Does Life Begin? The Status of the Unborn in the Biblical Tradition.

I'm pleased to announce that I will be doing a new two-lecture course on a rather timely topic, When Does Life Begin: The Status of the Unborn in the Biblical Tradition. The course is not connected with the Blog per se, except insofar as I'm doing it and many of you might be interested. For more information and registration, go to http://www.bartehrman.com/life Even if you can't come to the live lectures, you will be able to get a recording of the course to watch at your leisure. Here's a description of the course: ********************** The issue of abortion is one of the most divisive controversies in our country. In many ways it comes down to a very basic question: When Does Life Begin? At conception? Later in gestation? When the fetus is viable? At birth? For many people the question is intimately connected with the Bible. Does the Bible declare, intimate, or assume that the fetus is human? Some emphatically say yes. Others say no. Other are not so sure. In these lecture, we address the question [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T13:07:26-04:00May 17th, 2024|Public Forum|

A Major Argument That We Can Be Sure We Have the Original Text

There is one particularly interesting argument sometimes used by those who believe we can know with good certainty what the original text of the New Testament books said. This is the argument called the “tenacity of the tradition.” The argument is prefaced on the very interesting phenomenon that whenever papyri manuscripts are discovered – say from the third or fourth Christian century – they almost *never* contain new variant readings that we did not already know about from later manuscripts, of say the seventh to fifteenth centuries. Instead, the readings of these early manuscripts re-appear in later manuscripts. The conclusion that is sometimes drawn, then, is that that tradition is “tenacious.” That is to say, later manuscripts did not invent their variant readings, but in almost every instance replicated variant readings that they got from earlier manuscripts. And one corollary that is sometimes drawn, then, is variant readings do not disappear but continue to be replicated in later witnesses. If that is the case, then the “original” readings almost certainly still survive somewhere in the [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T13:07:26-04:00May 16th, 2024|New Testament Manuscripts, Public Forum|

Dubious Arguments That We CAN Get to the “Original Text”

When I have public debates with scholars over whether we can know the original text of the New Testament or not, I stake out the claim that we cannot, and they stake out the claim that we probably can. Part of my argument is always the one I started to outline in the previous post. If we take something like the Gospel of Mark, our first complete manuscript of Mark is 300 years after Mark was first produced and put in circulation. So how can we know if that manuscript is extremely close to the original? We don’t have an original to compare it to in order to find out. And we don’t have earlier manuscripts to compare it to in order to find out, except for one remarkable, but highly fragmentary manuscript about a century and half earlier (dating from around 200 CE), which does contain differences from the complete one. So given this fact, how does my opponent typically argue his case? Normally he cites two important data. There is no disputing either [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T13:07:26-04:00May 15th, 2024|New Testament Manuscripts|

Don’t the MOST Manuscripts Show What An Author Wrote?
Gallery
Don’t the MOST Manuscripts Show What An Author Wrote?

New Testament Manuscripts

Don’t the MOST Manuscripts Show What An Author Wrote?

Suppose you have thousands of manuscripts of a New Testament book and a particular verse is worded in one way in 98% of them but another way in just 2%? Surely the 98% is right, right? That was an issue I addressed many years ago on the blog, and to some of you, the answer may be surprising. Here's how I said it then. ****************************** Early on in my study of textual criticism I came to understand one of the major issues confronting scholars in the field – an issue that scholars have been contending with since the eighteenth century. For the past hundred years or so the vast majority of experts have been convinced by a solution to the problem, but the solution was slow in coming, for all sorts of reasons. But when I was first introduced to the problem I learned there were two sides that were being taken, and I wrote a paper about it (my first year in college, at Moody Bible Institute). I continued to be interested in the [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T13:07:25-04:00May 14th, 2024|New Testament Manuscripts|

Even If We Can Imagine an “Original” Text, How Could We Know if We Had It?

Scholars sometimes debate whether we can know that we have reconstructed the original text of the New Testament at every point – or even every important point. To me the answer was and is self-evidently, no, of course not. Many of my conservative evangelical critics think that I’m being overly skeptical, that since we have thousands of manuscripts of the NT, we can surely know better what the authors of the NT said than any other authors from the ancient world. My view is that this might be true, but that simply shows that we can’t know what *most* authors of the ancient world actually said, word for word. Why does that matter? I’ll explain in a second, for the bulk of this post. But first let me put the matter in very simple form, at least insofar as I can. Suppose Matthew’s Gospel was circulated for the very first time in Antioch of Syria around the year 85 CE. We’ll call that first circulated copy the “original.” Someone copied the original in his church. [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T13:07:26-04:00May 12th, 2024|New Testament Manuscripts, Public Forum|

Is There an Original Text Even of One of MY Books??

Here's a way to think about what it can even mean to talk about an "original text," from a post many years ago, published when I was just finishing up one of my books. ****************************** In my debates with other scholars about whether we can know (for certain) (or at they sometimes put it, with 99% certainty) what the original words of the New Testament were, I always argue that we cannot “know,” and they argue we can. Let me explain one reason that I find their position highly problematic by dealing with a broader issue. What exactly *is* the original text of a document? If we can’t agree on that very basic and fundamental question, then we can’t very well agree on the possibility of getting back to the original. I’ve dealt with this problem on the blog before, but let me approach if from a different angle this time. I have just finished my recent book on how memory studies can help us think about the oral traditions of Jesus [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T13:07:25-04:00May 11th, 2024|New Testament Manuscripts, Public Forum|

Previous 1···303132···207 Next