Loading...Here are some of the really interesting questions I’ve received recently, and my responses.
QUESTION:
Bart, you have said: “1 Thessalonians is a heartfelt connection from Paul to some of his converts where he tells them how well he thinks they are doing, urges them to keep on keeping on, reminds them to avoid sinful natures, and encourages to be patient now that some have fallen asleep, because the end is near.”
It’s been a long time since I’ve read the book and I am struck with the passage
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
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!
Learn More!
These are really good questions with very informative answers.
Thanks, Professor.
PS: I guess I can’t address you that way any longer. Congratulations on your retirement from UNC. You aren’t really retired with all the things you are involved with. When I retired 22y ago, I didn’t have enough time to do the things I wanted to do.
Actually, Bart will remain a Professor Emeritus for the rest of his life. 🙂
“Those few Jews… [who] were taught how to read were not trained to write…”
On the face of it, this assertion seems implausible to me, but I know you know your stuff, so I assume there’s something that goes unsaid in this statement that more astute readers than I take for granted. Can you help me identify the unstated assumption(s)?
Perhaps Jews who were taught how to read *Greek* were not trained to write in *Greek*?
If Jesus and his Jewish contemporaries spoke Aramaic, wouldn’t the few literate among them read and write Aramaic? Or couldn’t we expect the priestly class to read and write Hebrew?
The only author from Judah or Galilee from the first century whose writings we have in Greek is Josephus, from the end of the century; he indicates that he actually wrote his work in Aramaic and had to translate it, and had difficulty doing it. Most Jews in Judah or Galilee would never learn how to read; those who were taught in Jewish contexts would have learned to read Hebrew; few could write (the “scribes”) and they were not taught to compose their own writings but to copy Scripture. There may have been Greek educational possibilities in Sephoris or Tiberias, but again they would have been only for the upper crust elite, and the majority of students would have learned reading, not writing, and if writing, not copmpositoin. If they did produce any Greek authors we don’t have any indicatoin of it that I’m aware of. I’m not sure if that helps!
While an economist rather than anything like a biblical scholar, note that the indications from social history of the Greek speaking part of the early Empire would be that there were fewer “literate” people who could write than “literate” people who could not.
Literacy also implying a likely ability to write is a more modern thing.
Being able to write didn’t always indicate high social status, since a high status literate person unable to write might obtain a slave trained as a scribe.
Now, anyone who could write Hebrew could write Aramaic, given that the Jewish people after the Babylonian exile adopted the Aramaic script, but the economic question would be … how would Aramaic scribes in Judea and the Galilee make a living? Merchants engaged in longer distance trade would want a Greek scribe, after all. Writing letters to distant relatives or composing love letters seems an insecure occupation if most potential recipients are illiterate.
It does seem like the most secure living for a scribe trained in the Aramaic script would be to work for the Temple copying holy books.
I just learned of the existence of computer programs that perform “forensic stylometry” for purposes of author identification/differentiation. It seems as if the programs do what people do, as you have described, but apply some different techniques. Do you know if any of these have been adapted to biblical Hebrew or Greek?
https://fastdatascience.com/natural-language-processing/forensic-stylometry-linguistics-authorship-analysis/
Yes, biblical scholars have tried this since the 1950s; they’ve obviously gotten better at it. (!) My student Ben White has just published a book trying to show how stylometry can be used now for Paul.
Allow me to add a question I’ve wondered about. Looking on YouTube (almost as profound a resource as Dan Brown…), I see there are people who believe that Moses never existed, that Jesus never existed, that Mohammad never existed, and possibly that Abraham never existed. (I’m not claiming they never existed, only that there are some who make such claims.) In your debates with Mythicists, have you ever asked any of them if they disbelieve in the existence of all four, or only of Jesus? And, if the latter, why only Jesus?
I’ve never asked, but I’m pretty sure they’d say neither Moses nor Abraham did. I don’t think they did either. I’m not sure what they’d say about Mohammad. I’d guess they’re actually not much interested in teh question.
Bart,
In your opinion, is 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 a non-Pauline later interpolation?
I don’t think so, no. The reason people argue that it was inserted later by someone else into the letter is that the phrase “the wrath of God has come upon them” sounds like he’s referring to the destruction of the Temple/Jerusalem, but I don’t think he means that. In Rom. 1:18 he says the “wrath of God” has come upon pagans too. It just means that God is showing his anger at them in one way or another. Even though that’s the *argument* that is often used, I’ve always thought that in most cases the people/scholars who advance the argument do so because they don’t want Paul to be seen calling Jews “Christ killers.” My view is that the verse doesn’t teach that either.
That last question sparks a question due to the fact that I cannot read Greek.
Among other quotes from Papias, Eusabius has Papias saying something that I see translated in English as, “So Matthew arranged the oracles in Hebrew dialect, and each interpreted them as he was able.”
In English this is ambiguous, similar to “He beat his son because he was drunk” doesn’t pin down whether the father or the son was drunk, to wit, whether “in Hebrew dialect” was about the oracles, which Matthew arranged, or about Matthew’s arrangement of the oracles.
Is it ambiguous in the original, or is it clear in Greek that being in a Hebrew dialect referred to the work product, and not to the original oracles?
In my edition of Papias in the Loeb Classical Library (The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 2), I provide a different translation that I believe is more accurate: “And so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [Or: translated] them to the best of his ability.” But it is a tricky business, because the handful of manuscripts of the quotation have a textual variant: some manuscripts do say “composed” and others say “compiled.” So which is it? I would say that either way, the “sayings” (the Greek word is LOGIA) were written in Hebrew — either by Matthew himself or by who/whatever his source was for his compilation. He either wrote or compiled them, but “they” were in Hebrew. (Neither word means “translated”).
In reference to the first question, was Paul ignorant of the Roman responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion?
I don’t think so. In Paul’s world the Roman authorities were the only ones allowed to crucify criminals.
Then why would he say that the Jews killed Jesus?
He appears to be saying that they were the ones responsible for his death; it became a very common charge in Christianity, and it almost never meant that Jews actually nailed Jesus to the cross. (In the book of Acts it is the charge repeatedly leveled against Jewish crowds who weren’t even there at the time of the Passover Jesus was killed on).
Paul, in the 30,000 words of his seven authentic letters, never used the phrase, “Jesus was nailed to the cross.” The Synoptics never mention any kind of crucifixion wounds, or nails – not even in Jesus’ post-appearance story in Luke 24:36-43. A recent article entitled, “Nails or Knots – How was Jesus Crucified?” (Biblical Archaeology Review, Spring 2025) by Dr. Jeffrey P. Arroyo Garcia (Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Gordon College) suggests Jesus was tied to the cross and not nailed. Is your choice of words, “nailed Jesus to the cross,” based on later Christian adaptations that appeared by the time the Gospel of John was written?
It’s based on the normal way people were crucified, I suppose. We do have crucifixoin nails etc. John certainly holds to him being nailed. But yes, others were apparently tied. Paul does refer to the “blood” of Christ bringing atonement, and that would seem to imply punctures….
An article from British Archaeology, Jan/Feb 2022 entitled, “Crucifixion in the Fens: Life and Death in Roman Fenstanton,” mentions the discovery of an ancient skeleton with a 5-cm (2-inch) long nail in a right heel bone (nothing in the left). Page 28 of the magazine (page 11 of the PDF) states:
“Nailing was not primarily for affixing the body, but for preventing victims from using their feet to ease the position during the hours or days leading to death… The short length of nail that emerged from the bone in the Fenstanton specimen is not therefore inadequate for its purpose, since it would have contributed to disabling the individual.”
Are you familiar with this concept in Roman crucifixion? I have never heard of this. Page 27 (PDF 10) goes on to say:
“Just possibly the nailing was ritual anchoring of the corpse to prevent “walking”, but a more efficient anchoring might be expected than this single nail inefficiently placed.”
Again, is this view commonly held among scholars? The only other confirmed case of nails used in Roman crucifixion (Yehohanan ben Hagkol in a Jerusalem ossuary) used a much longer nail and did affix to a wooden post.
Yes, I’ve heard it, but I don’t know what evidence there is for it one way or the other.
I looked on Amazon for Ben White Stylometry and couldn’t find anything.
I’m interested in linguistics (as an amateur) and would like to glance through this book.
Can you give me a more complete title or a link?
Thanks.
Counting Paul: Scientificity, Fuzzy Math, and Ideology in Pauline Studies
by Benjamin L. White
Does Paul use the same Greek word for Jews/Judeans throughout his seven letters? For example, in Romans 3:9 and Romans 3:29, does Paul use that same Greek word or another Greek word more specific to Jews? Or as you mentioned, one should look at each verse in context to decide which reference (“religion” or “region”) is appropriate?
Yes, the word for Jew and Judean was the same word for allthe authors.
Doesn’t the inclusion of the phrase “and their own prophets” in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 suggest a more general, religious reference to Jews rather than the people of a particular region? Romans 11:2-3 also refers to “his people” and “they have killed the prophets.” Please don’t get me wrong, I think the statement is horrible and unfortunate. However, the verses suggest a generalized, biased, and terrible sentiment that existed very early on.
In your understanding of the early Christian texts, do you think Jesus’ highlighting (or criticizing?) that the Jews killed their prophets in Matthew 23:31-37 and Luke 11:47-48 13:34 (concept from the Hebrew Bible) is associated with the historical Jesus (Jesus sayings from “Q” material, verbal tradition, etc.) or that Paul first highlighted this theme in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 and Romans 11:2-3, and then it was added to the Gospels afterward?
I don’t see why it suggests that, no. The context is comparing opponents in Thessalonians with opponents in Judaea. Paul never condemns “the Jews” (say, inn Antioch) for killing their messiah.
Yes, I think the Gospel passages are later Xn understandings of what Jesus said (so too the book of Acts).
Is it possible the disciple Matthew had at least something to do with the gospel that bears his name? Yes, it’s largely borrowed from Mark, and is written in Greek. But there were gospels written in Aramaic, right? I’ve read that some scholars think that early versions might have been associated with the disciple Matthew. If he really was a tax collector, he could have been literate to some extent… more likely than a fisherman, anyway?
I wonder if some portions unique to the Matthew gospel, the M material, could have come from the disciple. This material is where most of the prophetic “fulfilments” for Jesus are found. The quotations from Hebrew scripture show ignorance of original meanings and context. It feels like debits and credits on a ledger: this passage (debit) is fulfilled by that Jesus action (credit). For me, the pattern fits with how a half-literate bean counter might think.
We don’t know of any Gospels written in Aramaic, but there may have been some. If you’ll listen to my recent debate with Jonathan Sheffield you’ll see why I don’t think most tax collectors were educated; if they were, they would have been taught how to read Hebrew, not to write. (Let alone compose books!) The best way to see if Matthew is behind the Gospel is to read it and see what hints there are of it. Unfortunately, there don’t appear to be any — see especially Matthew’s call to follow Jesus in ch. 9. Is ther anything there to make one suspect the author is talking about himself? Just the contrary I’d say….
Didn’t Jerome refer to an Aramaic gospel “used by the Nazarenes” in Against Pelagius 3.2?
Let’s imagine that Matthew became educated to some extent after he became a Christian. Maybe just enough to pick out what he thought were “fulfillments” by Jesus, badly matched to scriptures taken out of context. Debits and credits. Could that be what Papias refered to as “oracles”?
Point taken concerning Matthew’s call, doesn’t sound like he’s talking about himself. I’m imagining the Matthew gospel as having composite authorship, with the disciple himself perhaps contributing only a small portion.
1. Jerome’s references to the Jewish Gospel(s) are famously confusing and almost certainly confused. You can see my discussion of them in my book After the New Testament.
2. It’s one of the views people have, but the term “logia” means “sayings.”
There is another way to look at the passage in 1 Thessalonians. When it was first written, the words ran together and there was no punctuation. Some scrivener centuries later had to tease the words apart and punctuate the sentence. I think it’s fair to say that he (almost certainly it was a “he”) got it wrong and we have been living with the consequences ever since. As he translated it, the passage reads: “… the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets,…” The commas create a parenthetical to suggest that ALL Jews are responsible for his death. WITHOUT the commas, however (“… the Jews who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets…”), the sentence clearly indicates that it was the Jewish elite — and the Jewish elite only — who were responsible. It is probably overstating the case, but an argument can be made that those two little commas account for a lot of antisemitism over the centuries.
Yes, as you say, there were no commas when Paul wrote it. The verse could be read either way. I suppose another point to support your reading is that Paul is likening what the Judeans did to Jesus to what the Thessalonians “own compatriots” (“countrymen”) are doing to them, and the Thessalonians knew full well that not EVERY person in Thessalonica was persecuting them, just some. So too the Judeans who killed Jesus.
Yes, as you say, there were no commas when Paul wrote it. The verse could be read either way. I suppose another point to support your reading is that Paul is likening what the Judeans did to Jesus to what the Thessalonians “own compatriots” (“countrymen”) are doing to them, and the Thessalonians knew full well that not EVERY person in Thessalonica was persecuting them, just some. So too the Judeans who killed Jesus.
Yes, as you say, there were no commas when Paul wrote it. The verse could be read either way. I suppose another point to support your reading is that Paul is likening what the Judeans did to Jesus to what the Thessalonians “own compatriots” (“countrymen”) are doing to them, and the Thessalonians knew full well that not EVERY person in Thessalonica was persecuting them, just some. So too the Judeans who killed Jesus.
Question for ClaudTee: With or without the comma, how could Paul be limiting his comment to a specific group of people “who killed both the Lord and the prophets”? It does not seem possible that Paul would be saying the same “Jewish elite” would have killed both Jesus and the prophets. They were two separate groups of individuals separated by centuries. Or am I misunderstanding your explanation?
In reference to the first question, was Paul ignorant of the Roman responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion?
I don’t think so. Everyone in the empire (at least those who traveled a bit) knew that only Romans could crucify criminals; local authorities were not allowed to do so.
How do you feel about the idea of a proto-Luke embedded in what we now see as Luke; one that perhaps may have been more John oriented?
I’m thinking of the difference, perhaps, in the descent of the Holy Spirit in Luke 3:21 which seems to have been after the arrest of John and while Jesus was praying as a member of the baptised, or alone, not during the Baptism (as in Mark and Matthew).
It would also explain the emissaries of John needeing to confirm Jesus’ status in Luke 7:18–23 (and, then, copied or transmitted independantly to Matthew 11:2–6).
My view is that the only thing differnce between our Luke and “proto-Luke” (i.e., a an earlier published version of Luke) is that the first version didn’t have chs. 1-2.
Paul indicates that Judeans killed Jesus, yes. But that doesn’t mean he thinks they’re the ones who actually nailed him to the cross. And so yes, I agree with your interpretation.
Isn’t it odd that Paul says nothing about the life of Jesus? I mean, he apparently spoke with Peter, who could have told him a lot about what Jesus said or did. Was Paul so impressed by his vision and conversion experience that he felt everything Jesus said or did while alive was unimportant?
Very odd. (He says *some* things, but not much). I give a discussion of that on the blog — search for Paul and Jesus and you’ll see some posts.
Response to Christian’s thesis:
The correct dating of Acts determines whether the writings that came before it were written by contemporaries of Jesus. Your example of post resurrection appearances of Jesus is not the same as what’s missing from the history book of Acts. A history book about Jewish Christianity’s inception should contain events like, the destruction of the temple in 70AD, and the deaths of Nero (June, 68AD), and Peter and Paul, whom Nero executed, but it doesn’t. Therefore, Acts was written before these events and Luke’s gospel was written before that (Acts 1:1-3). If Luke took from Mark, then Mark was written before that as well.
“In Acts one of the major themes is NOTHING could stop Paul.” I couldn’t find this in any New Testament survey books or patristic literature. In Acts 5:34-39 Gamaliel says that nothing can stop the spread of “the message” if it’s from God; and people are still talking about Jesus 2,000 years later. Therefore to say, “Ending with Paul being executed would certainly have suggested he COULD be stopped, and that would be contrary to one of the author’s major themes” is incorrect. Please show me evidence to the contrary. Thank you
Comment on the Hebrew of Matthew:
Jerome:Illustrious Men, #3
Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek, though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Cæsarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Berœa, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint [Greek] but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist Out of Egypt have I called my son, and for he shall be called a Nazarene.
According to Jerome, the Hebrew Matthew was still being used in his day. It is not “LEGEND.” See also the intro to Illustrious men for more contextual evidence. Is there any evidence to the contrary?
Yup. Jerome’s treatment of this book that he allegedly translated is not just convoluted in places but clearly confused (he confuses different books as all the same book). If you want to see a full treatment, check out A.F.J. Klijn’s discussion in Jewish Christian Gospel Traditions.
I’m a little confused. According to the Illustrious Men citation it wasn’t Matthew or Jerome who translated Matthew from Hebrew to Greek it was “though by what author is uncertain.” Isn’t this correct? Second; when you speak of different books are you speaking of the theory that Hebrew Matthew was really the Gospel to the Hebrews and Jerome (and others) confused the two?
The problem with Jerome on the Jewish Gospels is that he is not consistent in what he says. You may want to check out that book by Klijn that I mentioned earlier. (At one point Jerome explicitly states that he translated it from Hebrew to Greek)
Dr. Ehrman, thank you for your response. I found that yes, it looks as though Jerome either confuses the Gospel of Hebrews with the Hebrew gospel of Matthew (Against Pelagians bk.3 #2) or I’m missing something. Jerome claims they are one and the same yet when he cites from gospel of the Hebrews about Jesus claiming to not needed John’s baptism because he had no sin, it is something that doesn’t exist in, and is contrary to, Matthew chapter 3. In all of the patristics the same thing exists; citations from the GOH are not found in Matthew. So it appears they are different works yes/no?
Illustrious Men #3 says that unknown others translated Hebrew Matthew into Greek. However, in Men #2 Jerome says he translated the gospel of the Hebrews into Latin and Greek. This is an odd place for this statement. If it were speaking of Hebrew Matthew I would think it should be recorded in Men#3 about Matthew instead of about James #2. Again, these citations in #2 are not found in Matthew, therefore I’m concluding they are two different works even though Jerome seems to say otherwise in Against Pelagius; yes/no?
Do you mean two different Jewish Christian Gospels? Yes, I think there were three. But one of them was not necessarily some kind of originally Hebrew version of Matthew. That could just as well have been a later tradition not rooted in a historical reality (since we hae no trace of it, among other things). The Gospel of the Nazareans appears to have been a translation of Matthew into Hebrew/Aramaic.
“Matthew couldn’t have written”
Addressing the opinion that the apostles were illiterate men and couldn’t have written (grapho) the scriptures; John said, “I write to you….” 1st John 2:7-14, 5:13. “These things were written….” John 20:30,31, 21:24. “What you see write in a book ….” Revelation 1:11,19.“ To the angel in the church of…. Write.” Luke claims (1:1-4), “I’m writing to you Theophilus” based on interrogation of eyewitnesses. Mark was not an eyewitness (Eusebius:EH, bk III, 4:7). Paul was highly educated under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) and wrote (Philemon 19, 2nd Peter 3:15,16). The apostles wrote (Acts 15:20,23). All Patristic literature claims these men “WROTE” the New Testament.
“The Roman Empire was a highly bureaucratic civilization that kept detailed records of births, deaths, marriages, land ownership, and taxes. This system was essential for efficient administration and revenue collection”-Archival Science.
Zacchaeus (tax collector) couldn’t have repaid people he defrauded, correct amounts, if he didn’t have written records (Luke 19:8). I don’t see how Matthew would know who to “harass” if he didn’t have written records either. How would he have reported information to the Roman Senate without written records? Is it impossible that someone taught Matthew how to write a biography?
Some people certainly could read (e.g., those reporting on the Roman Senate). The issue is *who* could read and write at that time. It wasn’t like today, where we have massive literacy. They had massive *ILliteracy*. Only upper class elite rich folk could send their kids to school. And the apostles living in rural-impoverished-Aramaic-speaking Galilee were not upper class elite folk; nor were there any Greek schools outside the major cities. The Gospel writers got their informatoin about Jesus and the disciples the way almost everyone back then got their informatoin — through oral traditions. And tax collectors did not need to read: they needed to know how to count money.
Thanx, I understand your argument, but doesn’t all patristic literature unanimously state the these guys (who they mention by name) wrote the gospel accounts? Irenaeus said “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome.” [Before their deaths 65AD] Irenaeus:Agaist Heresies, Bk III, ch 1:1. You know better than me that it’s true. So I don’t understand why you hold to the view here. It seems to me to be the same philosophical conjecture and confirmation bias you spoke about in the “I don’t like to do public debates” post from last week. From my research I see all of the ante-Nicene fathers make the same claims about this subject. Asking as polite and respectfully as possible, what do you think?
Yes, they do. Starting in 180 CE that became the standard line. But no one, in say, 230 CE would have any independent informatoin about it; they would only know what their predecessors had said — just as was true of the Epistle of Barnabas or 1 Clement, always called by these names by all church fathers even though they books were almost certainly not written by those people and circulated anonymously.
Matthew copied word for word
“our Gospel of Matthew was certainly composed in Greek. For one thing, the (unnamed) author borrowed extensively from Mark, word for word, in *Greek*. He wasn’t writing in Hebrew.”
I found this statement puzzling. So, I compared gospel accounts found *only* in Matthew (15:1-16:12) and Mark (7:1-8:21) and found that they are not close to being word for word. According to Jerome: Illustrious Men #3, Matthew wrote in Hebrew, but it was others who translated it into Greek, not Matthew.
As far as “Unnamed authors” goes; Bart, you gave me quotes for my most recent book “Misquoting Ehrman,” where you said you view patristic literature as evidence (thank-you). The evidence which that literature unanimously provides is: Matthew, Levi the tax collector, Luke the physician, John who leaned on Jesus’ chest, the one whom Jesus loved, wrote the gospel accounts attributed to their names. I’m amazed how differently people interpret evidence:(
Jerome:IllustriousMen#8
“Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel…. Peter approved it and published it to the churches to be read by his authority as Clemens and Papias record.” Peter died 65AD so Mark was written before that. According to all patristic literature, Matthew was *BEFORE* Mark.
Yes, this was Jerome’s view.