Canonical Gospels Archives - Page 19 of 35 - The Bart Ehrman Blog

Why Would an Ancient Author Write a Book Anonymously?

In response to yesterday’s post, I received a seemingly simple question that is both intriguing and complex. I will devote two posts to giving an answer QUESTION: Why were the gospels written anonymously? Was this the usual practice with this type of account in those times? RESPONSE: It’s a bit surprising that more attention hasn’t been paid to this question by scholars, who, as a rule, are *far* more interested in proving that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by the people named in their (current) titles than in exploring the issue of why the authors never named themselves. In this post I’ll deal with the phenomenon of anonymous writings *generally* in the ancient world; in the following post I’ll elaborate a suggestion I make here, but do not develop at any length, about the Gospels in particular. The following has been drawn from my discussion in my scholarly book Forgery and Counterforgery. But apart ********************************************************************************************** There are far fewer anonymous writings from antiquity – and from Christian antiquity – than of [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:41:07-04:00May 22nd, 2018|Canonical Gospels, Reader’s Questions|

Jesus as God in the Synoptics: A Blast From the Past

I sometimes get asked how my research in one book or another has led me to change my views about something important. Here is a post from four years ago today, where I explain how I changed my mind about something rather significant in the Gospels. Do Matthew, Mark, Luke consider Jesus to be God? I always thought the answer was a decided no (unlike the Gospel of John). In doing my research for my book How Jesus Became God, I ended up realizing I was probably wrong. Here's how I explained it all back then. ******************************************************************************** This, I believe, will be my final post on an issue that changed my mind about while doing the research for How Jesus Became God. This last one is a big one – for me, at least. And it’s not one that I develop at length in the book in any one place, since it covers a span of material. Here’s the deal: Until a year ago I would have said – and frequently did say, in the [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:40:50-04:00April 13th, 2018|Book Discussions, Canonical Gospels|

Scribes Who Injected the Idea of Atonement into Luke’s Gospel
Gallery
Scribes Who Injected the Idea of Atonement into Luke’s Gospel

Canonical Gospels, New Testament Manuscripts

Scribes Who Injected the Idea of Atonement into Luke’s Gospel

One of the most striking theological features of the Gospel of Luke and its accompanying volume the book of Acts is that they do not portray Jesus’ death as a sacrifice for sins. That seems very strange indeed to people who get their theology from other parts of the New Testament (e.g., Paul, and the other Gospels). But when read on their own, Luke-Acts have a different understanding of the significance of Jesus death. And that may be why scribes altered the words Jesus spoke at his last supper in Luke 22 – the textual variant I began discussing yesterday. I have a very long discussion of the issue in my book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture and a much shortened and simplified version in Misquoting Jesus. Here is what I say in the latter. ******************************************************************************* For proto-orthodox Christians, it was important to emphasize that Christ was a real man of flesh and blood because it was precisely the sacrifice of his flesh and the shedding of his blood that brought salvation – not in [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:40:35-04:00March 16th, 2018|Canonical Gospels, New Testament Manuscripts|

What Happened at the Last Supper? A Textual Problem in Luke

A couple of days ago a reader asked me a question in connection with something I had said about the early second-century Christian text, the Didache, and its instructions about how the Lord’s supper was supposed to be celebrated. Here is what I said: “When they celebrate the Eucharist they are first to bless the cup with a prayer that the author provides and then to bless the broken bread, with another set prayer (9:1–4). This way of celebrating the Lord’s Supper by starting with the cup and ending with the bread has long puzzled scholars, since the typical practice of the early Christians appears to be reflected in the New Testament accounts of the Last Supper, where Jesus distributes first the bread and then the cup” This led a reader to ask: QUESTION: Does this relate to Luke 22:17-20 where the author has Jesus take the cup, then take the bread, then take the cup again? RESPONSE: Ah, it is a good question. Many readers will not know that there is a [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:40:35-04:00March 15th, 2018|Canonical Gospels, New Testament Manuscripts|

Early Christology: How I Changed My Mind

It seems like every time I write a book, based on the research I do I change my mind about one thing or another that I've thought for a long time. Some people (including some fellow scholars) think that's a weakness or a problem. I think of it as one of my charming personality traits. :-) OK, seriously, I think more scholars ought to be willing to change their minds -- instead of being intransigent and thinking they are always right. If intense research gives you new and different insights, that's a *good* thing, not a problem. I think about this a lot every time I'm in the midst of doing research for a book (such as now) (well, OK, such as almost always), and just now I was looking through old blog posts , and I ran across one (almost exactly five years ago today!) where I talk about a big change of mind involving the early understandings of Jesus as a divine being, in connection with the book I eventually published, How Jesus [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:40:19-04:00March 2nd, 2018|Book Discussions, Canonical Gospels, Early Christian Doctrine|

The Ironies of Jesus’ Trial

In yesterday’s post I mentioned that fact that John’s Gospel has a very different portrayal of Jesus’ trial before Pilate than any of the other Gospels. It is longer, more involved, and highly intriguing. Unlike the other Gospels, it is not a short trial where Jesus says only two words (in Mark, Pilate asks Jesus if he is the king of the Jews and Jesus replies: “You say so” – in Greek SU LEGEIS). There are numerous back and forths, including, at one point, Pilate’s famous question “What is truth?” To make sense of the scene it is important to realize that John is going to have Jesus die on a different day from the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In those earlier Gospels, the day before Jesus’ death his disciples ask him where he wants them to “prepare the Passover meal” (Mark 14:12). He gives them instructions how and where to prepare the meal and they do so. That evening (which, in Jewish reckoning, is the beginning of the next day) they [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:40:19-04:00February 20th, 2018|Canonical Gospels|

The Increasing Innocence of Pilate in the Death of Jesus

QUESTION: How is it that all four gospels portray Pilate as recognizing the innocence of Jesus and being extremely reluctant to order his execution? RESPONSE: What is most intriguing (and enlightening) is that over time in the Christian tradition – both inside the New Testament and outside of it – Pilate becomes more and more innocent in the death of Jesus with the passing of time. You can see this clearly simply by lining up the Gospels chronologically and seeing how they portray Pilate at the trial of Jesus. Our earliest Gospel is Mark (15:1-15). There Pilate is somewhat reluctant to do what the Jewish leaders ask him to do – crucify Jesus – and he seems a bit bewildered. He has a custom of releasing a prisoner during Passover and suggests Jesus. But the crowd, stirred up by the chief priests, wants Barabbas instead. And so, after a very brief trial Pilate, does what they ask. Here Pilate is simply complying with the Jews’ wishes; he puts up some resistance, but not a [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:40:19-04:00February 19th, 2018|Canonical Gospels, Historical Jesus|

Why Discrepancies Matter for Interpretation

In the last post I pointed out that Mark and Luke have very (very!) different portrayals of Jesus going to his death. In this post I want to explain why that ultimately matters for understanding each of the Gospels: without understanding this difference, you will misunderstand *both* Gospels. *********************************************************************** I have argued that the two portrayals of Jesus going to his death in Mark and Luke are radically different, and that recognizing this radical difference is of utmost importance for understanding what each author is trying to say. The in-shock, silent Jesus of Mark, who is betrayed, denied, abandoned, and mocked by everyone, who wonders at the very end why God himself has forsaken him, simply is not the same as the calm confident Jesus of Luke, who knows God is on his side, who understands what is happening to him, and who knows what will happen to him after it happens to him: he will wake up in paradise. A deeper understanding of each Gospel seeks to understand the portrayal of Jesus found in [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:40:19-04:00February 18th, 2018|Canonical Gospels|

Why Differences and Discrepancies Matter Theologically/Religiously

On Wednesday I will be having a public debate with Mike Licona at Kennesaw State University on the topic: "Are the Gospels Historically Reliable." This is something I've thought long and hard about for my entire adult life, and so has he. But we disagree, heartily. It should be a lively and interesting debate. Just now I was looking through the ancient history of the blog, and I ran across this post where I discuss the issue from a different perspective (different from what I usually say) -- one in which I claim that it is *helpful* for Christians to realize that the Gospels have discrepancies. Interesting thought, I think, and think I thought! - Mike Licona is the author of The Resurrection of Jesus, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels and Evidence for God. ***************************************************************************** In my two previous posts I’ve been trying to explain that the historical-critical view of the Gospels, in which they are recognized not always to represent historically accurate information about Jesus, is not necessarily a view that “trashes” them. [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:40:19-04:00February 16th, 2018|Bart's Critics, Canonical Gospels|

Small Differences that Make a Difference

Here is something different on the significance of textual variants for understanding the Greek New Testament. Most of the hundreds of thousands of variations are completely insignificant in the big overall scheme of things (e.g., misspelled words and slips of the pen); others involve enormous differences that matter a lot (the story of the woman taken in adultery). Lots of others are between the two, small differences that are interesting for how they might change the meaning of a passage slightly but possibly significantly. This semester I’m teaching an intermediate Greek class for the Classics Department with some exceptionally bright undergraduates who are already proficient in the ancient language. Yesterday we in class we translated the birth narrative of Luke 2, and I realized anew how a slight change can be important. Among the changes attested in our manuscripts is one whose significance had never registered with me. Luke 2:1-5 indicate that Caesar Augustus send out a decree for “the entire world” to be enrolled, and that Joseph needed to enroll in the town of [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:40:01-04:00February 7th, 2018|Canonical Gospels, Christian Apocrypha, New Testament Manuscripts|

The Virgin Birth and the Gospel of John: A Blast from the Past

As I've indicated on the Blog before, I tend to go to a Christmas Eve Midnight service with my wife Sarah (usually my one time in church during the year), and this year was no exception. We were in Suffolk, England, in the town of Woodbridge, and attended the Anglican church there for a very nice service. The Gospel reading was from John (1:1-14), a standard reading. But I wondered whether anyone in the congregation realized that this passage in John says nothing about Jesus' being born of a virgin -- one of the very big points of the Christmas message today! And just now I wondered if I had ever talked about that very interesting factoid on the blog. It turns out, the answer is yes, precisely three years ago today. This is what I said then. ********************************************************************* I have pointed out that our earliest Gospel, Mark, not only is lacking a story of the virgin birth but also tells a story that seems to run precisely counter to the idea that Jesus’ mother [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:39:45-04:00December 28th, 2017|Canonical Gospels, Public Forum|

A Final Statement on a Different Approach to the Synoptic Problem: Evan Powell

OK, this will be the last post in this current thread involving the Synoptic Problem. Some of you will be glad to know that this one is written not at the scholarly but for normal human beings (as opposed to abnormal academics….). It should be very accessible. It is written by the blog-member who started this whole thing off with a challenge, Evan Powell. Thanks to all the participants in the back and forth – Evan, Allan Garrow, and Mark Goodacre. I don’t know about you, but I think it’s been a helpful interchange, and a (nicely) unusual thread for the blog. *********************************************** EVAN POWELL – A Solution to the Synoptic Problem The literary relationships between the Synoptic Gospels, and specifically the issue of whether Q existed as a lost sayings gospel, are vitally important questions to anyone who studies the historical Jesus and the evolution of first century Christianity. We all want to know which gospel traditions were early, perhaps originating with Jesus, and which were later ideas incorporated into the movement’s [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:39:32-04:00December 15th, 2017|Canonical Gospels, Public Forum|

Brief Reply to Garrow

I'm taking the day off from the blog (a vacation day!), but received this comment from Mark Goodacre and didn't want it to be lost in the comment section, as I think it is important. (And for balance, I will indeed be posting, later, blog-member Evan's assessment of the whole thing, since he started it!). Here is Mark's response to what Alan Garrow's post. Many thanks to Dr Garrow for his interesting response. I should point out, though, that this does not respond to my point, which is not a question about degrees of plausibility, but a question about the consistency and coherence of Garrow's model. The issue to which I am drawing attention is straightforward: Garrow claims that high verbatim agreement in double tradition is diagnostic that Matthew is working from Luke alone. I am pointing out that on his model, high verbatim agreement does not illustrate this. I've added some additional comments on my blog at https://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/further-response-to-alan-garrow.html. Many thanks, by the way, to everyone for the fascinating responses to my post, and [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:39:31-04:00December 14th, 2017|Canonical Gospels, Public Forum|

Back Again: Did Matthew Use Luke? Alan Garrow’s Reply to Mark Goodacre

As you know, I agreed to allow Mark Goodacre to respond to Alan Garrow’s unusual view of how to explain the “Synoptic Problem,” as part of the $1000 challenge by blog-participant Evan. Some of you enjoyed going down into the weeds yesterday with Mark; today I post Alan Garrow’s reply to Mark’s Response, and if you like the weeds, here are some more! If nothing else, these posts show why it is hard to make scholarship simple and accessible to the non-expert, without simplifying it out of recognition -- which is the ultimate goal of this blog. If you prefer other kinds of (less weedy) fields, no worries! I’m not planning on continuing this back and forth, with one exception. Evan himself would like to post his views, and I’ve agreed to allow him to do so. But first I’ll let these two posts settle in for you, and tomorrow get back onto other things. Here now is Alan’s reply to Mark’s response. See which side you line up with! (Just one point of clarification [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:39:31-04:00December 13th, 2017|Canonical Gospels, Public Forum|

Did Matthew Copy Luke? Mark Goodacre’s Rebuttal

Here now is Mark Goodacre’s response to Alan Garrow’s attempt to show that the author of Matthew had access to and used the Gospel of Luke in constructing his own account of Jesus’ life. This kind of argument, to carry any weight, has to get down into the weeds a bit. So brace yourself! I consider it a compelling response. Many thanks to Evan for issuing this challenge and for making such a generous donation to the blog. And many thanks as well to Mark Goodacre, who could resist dealing with an intriguing thesis that sits comfortably in his wheelhouse. I have told Evan and Alan Garrow himself that I would be happy to post a reply to Mark’s post. Alan Garrow’s most popular books are The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache and Revelation. Mark Goodacre is the author of several books, including The Case Against Q, and Thomas and the Gospels. ********************************************************* Garrow's Flaw In a recent comment on this blog, "Evan" suggested that Alan Garrow's arguments are so compelling that he [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:39:31-04:00December 12th, 2017|Canonical Gospels, Public Forum|

A $1000 Challenge to Me: Did the Author of Matthew Use Luke?

As some of you know, a member of the blog, Evan, recently offered a $1000 donation to the blog if I would respond to the claims of New Testament scholar, Alan Garrow, that in studying the Synoptic Gospels, a completely compelling case can be made that the author of Matthew knew and used the Gospel of Luke. This is a view that almost no one in the academy holds. After a bit of back and forth – which I give below – Evan agreed that if I could find another respected expert in the field to respond to Garrow’s claims, instead of doing it myself, he would still donate the money. One of the scholars on the blog happens to be my colleague in New Testament studies at Duke, Mark Goodacre, who has spent the majority of his distinguished scholarly career researching, writing, and teaching on the Synoptic Problem. There is no one better to respond. And as it turns out, he volunteered to write a response without my even asking! Many thanks to Evan [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:39:31-04:00December 11th, 2017|Canonical Gospels, Reader’s Questions|

Could Q Have Been Lost? Readers’ Mailbag December 3, 2017

I have received a lot of questions about Q this week. If you’re wondering about why blog members are interested in a figure from Star Trek, you may want to review this week’s posts. Here is a question that I find particularly intriguing. QUESTION: It is hard to believe that Q, if it existed, circulated enough to be used by both but then dropped off the face of the Earth without so much as a mention by an early church father, while references to so many other documents survived (with some being found). RESPONSE: Ah, this is an interesting observation and involves a set of questions that I’m very interested in but have never published (much of) anything about. How much of the early Christian literature was lost? Could early Christians simply have allowed important writings to disappear (even if independent once knew them)? To the historian’s eternal chagrin, the answer appears to be yes. My guess is that most early Christians simply didn’t see a need to preserve their writings for posterity [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:39:31-04:00December 3rd, 2017|Canonical Gospels, History of Christianity (100-300CE), Public Forum|

Redaction Criticism of the Gospels

In a previous post I explained why scholars have long held to "Markan Priority," the view that Mark was the first Gospel written and that Matthew and Luke both used it for constructing their own narratives. One great pay-off for this conclusion (it really is significant) is that it is possible, given this result, to see how Matthew and Luke have each *modified* Mark in the stories they received from him. This approach is called "redaction criticism." A "redactor" is an editor. Redaction criticism looks at the editing decisions made by an editor of a source. Years ago I described the method and gave an illustration of how it worked on the blog, in part to show that finding the differences between the Gospels is not necessarily a *negative* thing, but can have very *positive* results for interpreting the message each one has. This is what I said then: ********************************************************************* I have stressed that knowing that there are differences, even discrepancies, among the Gospels does not need to be considered in a purely negative [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:39:15-04:00December 1st, 2017|Canonical Gospels, History of Biblical Scholarship, Public Forum|

And Then There Was Q

After my post yesterday about the "priority of Mark" (the view almost universally held among scholars that Mark was the first Gospel written and that Matthew and Luke used it for many of their own stories) I received a number of queries from readers about the "Q" source. So I better address that as well. Matthew and Luke obviously share a number of stories with Mark, but they also share with each other a number of passages not found in Mark. Most of these passages (all but two of them) involve sayings of Jesus -- for example, the Beatitudes and the Lord's Prayer. Since they didn't get these passages from Mark, where did they get them? Since the 19th century scholars have argued that Matthew did not get them from Luke or Luke from Matthew (for reasons I'll suggest below); that probably means they got them from some other source, a document that no longer survives. This came to be known as the "Sayings Source." The scholars who developed this view were principally German, and [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:39:15-04:00November 29th, 2017|Canonical Gospels, Reader’s Questions|

Arguments for Markan Priority (that Mark was the first Gospel written)

For reasons related to an unusually convoluted thread (I’d be surprised if anyone can even detect the thread! I myself barely can – it has to do with Jesus’ view of the afterlife) I need to answer a reader’s question about why scholars think the Gospel of Mark was the first to be written (once I do that, I can show how Luke often changed Mark, which will get me back to Luke’s treatment of Jesus’ rejection in Nazareth, which will get me back to the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, which will get me back to the question of whether the parable represents Jesus’ own views….). So far as I can tell, and to my surprise, I’ve never published a blog post showing why scholars – since the 19th century – have typically maintained that Mark was the first of the Synoptic Gospels to be written and that Luke and Matthew both used Mark for many of their own stories about Jesus. That view is called “Markan priority” (Mark is prior to [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:39:15-04:00November 28th, 2017|Canonical Gospels, Public Forum|

Previous 1···181920···35 Next