(7 votes, average: 4.71 out of 5)
Loading...As you may know, I have started producing a series of online courses that consider in a systematic way how historical scholars understanding the Bible. These are not connected with the blog, but are a separate activity I have for the Bart Ehrman Professional Services (BEPS; website: www.bartehrman.com) In June I did a freebie as part of the series and invited all blog members to come. Many did! If you missed it, or would like to see it again, just click this link!
It’s a 50 minute talk, with Q&A following, on one of the important issues confronting readers of the New Testament: were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? When did the Gospels start being called that? Why don’t the authors actually identify themselves? Is there evidence for these attributions? In short, how would we know. Take a watch, and let me know if you have more questions!
https://www.bartehrman.com/did-matthew-mark-luke-john-write-the-gospels/
Hi Bart,
I plan to watch this video, and I am currently enjoying reading your “The New Testament” 7th Edition while I focus on the synoptic problem. At this point, I suppose that whatever date the Synoptic Gospels were written, then I agree with Markan priority and the four-source hypothesis. In that context, I am also starting to read “Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition” by Jonathan Bernier (2022).
I wonder. Have you read Bernier (2022)? and do you plan to analyze it?
Best,
James
Haven’t read it! No plans to analyze it just now.
How do you rebut Simon Gathercole’s article, which argues that the gospels were never anonymous? “The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels,” Journal of Theological Studies (2018).
By the way, there are plenty of scholars who argue that Luke-Acts was written by a Jew.
1. By saying I thnk he is wrong. 🙂 Actually, I think the original readers certainly knew the names of teh authors — they were leaders of their own communities. It’s only when they move into wider circles that no one knows the names of the people and the become lost to history. To that extent they were not circulated anonymously *at first* even though they are definitely *written* anonymously (since no names are attaced to the accounts htemselves. 2. It’s one of the two options.
I don’t know whether you have read Gathercole’s article. One of his main points is that all the manuscripts have names attached to every gospel, and that the names are consistent. If the authorships were forgotten for a time and if the Christian communities later felt the need to add names to the manuscripts, why did they all choose the same names? I am struggling to reconcile this unanimity with your reconstruction. Gathercole contrasts the gospels with the truly anonymous Hebrews, which the ancients attributed to a variety of people. Text critics generally consider a word to be original when it is in every manuscript. The word “Mark”, for example, is in every manuscript, so shouldn’t we consider it original?
Yup, I did read it. I egive an explanation for the titles (which of course do not start appearing until we have manuscripts!) being the same in my book Forged. It’s too long for a comment here but maybe I should post on it down the line.
In “Forged” you say that the second century Christians deduced that the author of Luke-Acts was a Gentile and therefore chose the Luke of Colossians as the author.
However, the second century Christians knew (or believed) that
1) the author of Acts was a missionary partner of Paul and that Paul and all his missionary partners were Jews.
2) the author of Acts was a gospel author, and all the other gospel writers were identified as Jews.
3) the mission to Gentiles was supported by Jews, including Peter, James, and Silas.
So how could the second century Christians have unanimously concluded that the author of Acts was a Gentile?
It is unlikely that they would choose “Luke” without good reason, since the name is last among the greeters in Philemon and second to last in Colossians. Name order indicates prominence (in context). Why do we have no manuscripts that attribute Luke or Acts to Jesus called Justus, or to Mark?
You suggest that the second and fourth gospels were unanimously attributed to Mark and John under the influence of an incompetent Papias. Why would the second century Christians all follow the same incompetent person, who was not widely read (for his works have not survived)?
1. I don’t recall ever saying there was a unanimous decision in the second century. My guess is that most had no idea who wrote the book and didn’t much care. Eventually the idea circulated that it was Luke, and that caught on, as there were no other options being put forward. And it made sense, given that they did think it was a gentile and that it was a acompanion of Paul. So that *was* a good reason. 2. No, Papias never mentions John (it’s Matthew). 3. We don’t know what second century authors thought about Papias. By the fourth century he’s considered by the one person who mentions him to be incompetent. 4. Even *that* person (Eusebius) quotes him when it suits his purposes — as has everyone since then.
Thank you for this, it should be very helpful. Do you have any blog posts on Marriage in the Bible?
I don’t think so. Do you mean about customs of marriage?
Defining Genesis 2:24
I suppose all we can say about marriage customes in the Bible is that they varied HUGELY from one biblical time/place or another. Gen 2, of course, does not have marriage in mind. Later in Genesis the Patriarchs are polygamous, and no moral problem is attached to it. By the time of Jesus it’s a different matter altogether. One custom we know about from NT times is that marriage involves some serious partying (John 2!).
Thanks for the great lecture. I have always been suspicious of the portrayal of Jesus’ disciples by the gospel writers who portray them as ignorant and unable to read, probably because they have sided with Paul and his gospel over against the gospel preached by Peter, James and the Jerusalem church. Yet I notice that you always assume that you can trust the comment that Jesus’ disciples could not read. Isn’t it possible that this was just part of the authors’ tendency to make the disciples look ridiculous and ignorant?
I don’t think the Gospel writers wanted to stress that the disciples were stupid, in the sense of unintelligent; they wanted to emphasize that they just “didn’t get it” when it came to Jesus’ identity. That idea works even better if the people who don’t get it are otherwise reasonably intelligent.
How possible is it that based on Papias description of Mathew, that those “Sayings” may be the original Q Source? Could it be that the “Gospel of Mathew” which was based on the Q Source have been considered to be a Gospel attributed to Mathew? Would the original “sayings” fall aside since the later Gospel based on Mathews recount included them?
It seems much more plausible to me that the apostles most likely just wrote down the sayings they remembered in the original language they were spoken, then later writers wrote gospels in greek created around those sayings.. Papias account of Mark seems to indicate that the Original “Mark” was a combination of sayings and events then someone else used such to write what is called the Gospel of Mark in greek. Again gospel name attibuted to the original writings of the real Mark.. Really sayings and events of Jesus “according to Peter” written by Mark since Peter was illiterate.
It’s possible; of course he would not be right that it was written in Hebrew. My view is that th eaposltes didn’t write down any of Jesus’ sayings because they couldn’t write. I discuss this at some length in my book Forged.
Kind of random, but you discuss how one of Papias’s quotes of Jesus is weird and unlikely – the every branch 1,000 boughs, every bough 1,000 grapes, etc. thing. I was recently looking at the Apocalypse of Paul, and I see to my surprise that it (or just the Coptic version?) also includes a similar phrase (at verse 22) about ten thousand fruits of palms upon ten thousand fruits, vines with thousands of bunches, and the bunches having thousands of grapes, etc. Does this multiplicative, grape-plenty vision of the Kingdom of God show up in even more places?
It’s a kind of theme you find in a variety of writings, including Jewish, about the glories to come. I don’t have references off hand (one in 2 Baruch?)
Bart, I have to write a paper for school addressing the issues of whether or not the Old Testament teaches salvation by works. However, a better question to me is, does the concept of salvation, as understood in the New Testament, even exist in the Old Testament? I mean, hell doesn’t even appear to be a reality in the Old Testament. Am I wrong for challenging this question? I just feel like the question assumes the Old Testament authors had this concept of salvation in mind.
1. No the concept doesn’t exist there and 2. No, the idea that the Israelite/Jewish religion is based on works is a complete misconception that became prominent especailly in the Protestant Reformation. The Law was *not* seen as a way to “earn God’s favor.” Quite the contrary, because Jews were teh chosen people they were *already* favored by God; he gave them the Law as a great gift, shwoing them how to live together and worship him. Grace came before obedience, not the other way around.
Unrelated, but did the Greeks have a unique dislike of circumcision? I heard that was the case? If true, did this disdain also extend to neighboring peoples such as the Romans, Aramaeans, Egyptians, ect?
Yes. As did most people who did not practice it.
I was more wondering how much the greek dislike of circumcision had spread to their neighbors. Sorry if this is a weird question.
Not weird at all. What I’m saying is that Greeks didn’t invent this dislike and that it spread from them; it was simply the view most people had.
Hi Prof Ehrman,
No question today. Just checking on how you are doing today.
Much better, thanks. Tested negative and starting to resume life as we know it.
Bart,
NT Jesus teaches the concept of a thought crime in Matt 5:28 – a man simply having sexual thoughts about another woman has committed adultery. I would imagine the vast majority of married men would be guilty of that at least once in the course of a marriage.
All humans occasionally have an intrusive thought or two during the day that pops into our head unwelcomed that we quickly dismiss and move on with our lives. It’s part of being human.
1. Do we have any idea where this concept of thought crime in Christianity came from ie is it found in Judaism or Greek sources?
2. Do you know of any scholarly books written on this topic of thought crime in Christianity?
TY!
SC
I’m not really sure. It is often supposed that such things go way back in the Jewish tradition (as well as in others), back at least as far as teh Law of Moses which condemns not just stealing and committing adultery but also “coveting” your neighbors house, donkey, and wife (as if these were commensurate!). That’s usually imagined to be an internal desire, that is a thought process of some kind.
Thanks for sharing this free of charge Bart.
I am uncertain though about one of your assertions, if I understand you right; that other gospels – perhaps of Peter,or Thomas – were already circulated by name in the period when the four canonical gospels circulated anonymously.
But is that true? Do we have any citation from a known non-canonical gospel by name, in an author who also cites a canonical gospel anonymously? Or are you yourself here referring to Papias, but as referring to one or another of the non-canonical gospels?
The one major instance is Justin, who quotes all four Gospels anonymously (as the “Memoirs of the apostles” — but doesn’t name any of them , but does one time mention the Gospel of Peter. It’s a much convluted passage ni the Dialogue with Trypho, in which Justin refers to “Peter” and then indicates he is referring to a passage in “his Memoirs.” As you might expect, many scholars can’t believe he’s referring to the Memoirs (i.e., Gospel) of Peter, but there is really good evidence he is (recognized by Harnack and Hilgenfeld, but with an unusually strong marshalling of evidence by P. Pilhofer, the strength of which can be gauged by the unconvincing attempts refute it by C-J Thompson and Paul Foster. I have an extended discussion in Forgery and Counterforgery pp. 324-27.)
Yes I was wondering about Justin; but Brent Nongbri makes a good case otherwise.
– the citation is certainly in the text we know as Mark; which we know Justin uses. Possibly GOP has copied ‘Mark’, but why would Justin go to GOP here, and only here?
– ‘His memoirs’ is singular, and otherwise Justin’ authorial citations are invariably plural in form – ‘prophets’, ‘apostles’. So ‘his’ could mean ‘memoirs about him’ (I.e. Jesus); or ‘memoirs sourced from him’ (I.e. Peter). In context, likely the second. But not ‘memoirs of which Peter was the author’.
Yup, I completely disagree. Pilhofer shows that there are literary links in Justin’s comments to the Gspoel of Peter that are not in Mark. I really do think it’s a strong argument. And wish it were in ENglish!
Fascinating Bart.
Is Pilhofer saying that, within the text cited at Dial. 106.3 there are literary links to the Gosple of Peter that are not in Mark 3: 16-17? To me Justin’s citation appears as exact a renderering of Mark as any of Justin’s other citations of known gospel texts from as from the ‘memoirs of the apostles’.
Or is Pilhofer maintaing that there are unrelated literary links to the Gospel of Peter in other portions of Justin. Which may be the case so far as I am qualified to assess; but that begs the underlying question; if these are other citations of GoP, why doesn’t Justin say so in these cases, as at 106.3?
The key points though are firstly, that, Justin says that ‘memoirs of the apostles’ are read regularly in public worship (Apology 1.67.3); and secondly, that he authors of these memoirs are ‘apostles and their followers’ (Dial, 103.8). From which we may infer that he knows at least two ‘memoirs’ – one each from an ‘apostle’ and ‘follower’- and also that he believes he knows who these authors were, even if he chooses not to name them.
He deals with verbal echoes in Justin’s discusson of the passion narrative of Peter but not in Mark — since all we have of Peter is a fragment of the passion and resurrection. (So he can’t talk about parallels that we *have* in conecton with Mark 3:16f). Justin of course usually does not name the sources of his information.
Justin indeed may know the names of these Apostles who wrote the memoirs. Unfortunately he doesn’t give them, so we don’t know what names he connected with them. The only exception is Peter.
In the Gospels, Jesus’s ‘cleansing of the temple’ is depicted as a response to the perceived perversion of the Temple by money-lenders and merchants. My understanding is that’s probably not what happened, since the Temple was traditionally a center of trade, and the money-lenders were necessary to convert the various currencies used by Jews traveling from around the world to the Temple. (Assuming this understanding is accurate, please let me know if it isn’t)– do you think the Gospels’ depiction of Jesus raging against the merchants/money-changers and accusing them of turning the Temple into a ‘den of thieves’ reflects the Gospel authors’ misunderstanding of the nature of the Temple, being that they were most likely gentiles (with the possible exception of Matthew) and not Jewish?
I think it may actually be historical, that this was indeed Jesus’ view. The peole connected with the temple then, just as people now who understand how it had to function, can see the practicality of money-exchange and sellinng of animals — but it’s possible that a rural Jew from elsewhere who saw all that going on for the first time may have found it offensive. I’m not *certain* that it goes back to a historical event though; I am certain that the Gospel writers did indeed exaggerate and alter the stories (in Mark, for example, Jesus shuts down the entire temple cult! I don’t see how *that* could happen)
Thank you for the response! I hadn’t considered that, as someone from an impoverished rural area visiting the Temple for the first time, Jesus himself might not have understood or approved of the way the Temple functioned. It’s an interesting prospect. Out of curiosity, do we have any kind of record of rural Jews of the time sharing that view of the Temple’s operations– feeling that the currency exchanges and merchants selling animals represented a perversion of the Temple or Judaism?
I don’t know of any records of this; I suppose in part because rural Jews didn’t leave us any writings. We do know that the members of the Dead Sea Scrolls thought the temple and its leadership were hopelessly corrupt, but for resaons connected with their legitimacy and the use of a wrong calendar.
Prof Ehrman,
Why and at what point do Christians begin to use the terminologies ‘Old ‘New Testament’ and ‘New Testament’ for their scriptures? Are there discussions leading up to these terms?
Now *THAT* is a question I used to know the answer to! I *think* the first instance is Melito of Sardis aroudn 180 or so; certainly by the time of Origen.
Secondly, will you be able to share thoughts on whether St. Augustine argued for the use of torture for people who were considered heretics and did it lay the foundation for the use of such methods during the Inquisition?
I don’t think so!
Thank you for this great lecture Dr. Ehrman.
I used to hear that the “naked fugitive” in Mark 14:51-52 was the author being self-referential. While I don’t find this convincing, this passage does seem strange and possibly tongue-in-cheek in comparison to the rest of the gospel. Do scholars have thoughts on why this anecdote was included?
Secondly: in the Unknown Gospels course, will you be discussing the ways in which scholars can speculate on the situations of origin for each gospel (i.e. geographic location within the Empire, what kind of congregation the book may have been written for, etc.)?
Thanks. 1. There are lots of interpretations, ranging from the plausible to the bizarre. The idea that it’s Mark himself attracts people because it’s intriguing and because none of the other explanations are as interesting. But, for example, it could be mean that this is someone who left everything behind to follow Jesus. Etc. 2. Not in that course, but in later courses that I’ll be devoting to each of the Gospels separately. The difficult reality is that we simply don’t know where they were written, though there has been loads of speculation about it for roughly forever.
Sir,
I viewed, in part so far, your lecture regarding the apostolic authorship of the Gospels. Taking in particular your section on John, is it possible he used a scribe to put in writing (Greek) his dictation? I suspect a more conservative scholar could posit this premise.
Thanks!
I’m afraid it’s really not likely. From all the evidence we have about scribes and secretaries in antiquity, we don’t have any hint of any one doing that for an “author.” Secretaries could and did take dictation, but then never composed literary works to help out someone who wasn’t literate — at least so far as our rather abundant evidence suggests.
Thank you for replying! Appreciated!
I assumed this possibility since Paul may have used a scribe.
Did the author of Gospel of Mark have a source for Jesus’s death and resurrection other than oral tradition. I think in one of your books you said that some people suggest that Paul was Mark’s only source for that material. Much of that section seems to be designed to refute criticisms of Christianity ( Jesus wasn’t dead, they didn’t know where the tomb was, etc…). Could Mark’s author have constructed it almost out of whole cloth?
No, I don’t think Paul was the source for Mark’s stories; so far as we know, Paul didn’t know the stories Mark relates. It is debated whether Mark had access to a written source for this material or not. I’d say it’s almost impossible to know.