Loading...I have received an interesting question about ancient forgeries. If we have lots of forgeries in the name of Peter — and lots of others in the names of other apostles: Paul, James, Jude, Thomas, Philip, etc. etc. — why don’t we have any forgeries allegedly written by Jesus himself? As it turns out we do. The most famous was, at one time, well known indeed.
Here is the question and my response.
QUESTION:
If Peter was named as an author of these works, why not name Jesus then of others(that we know of )? Was it understood within the community that, and why, he chose not to write his views down — or was this too bold of a move even for a shameless forger? Or he was still deemed less accessible than his followers?
RESPONSE:
Yes indeed, there is a one-time famous correspondence between Jesus and a king who lived in Edessa in Syria named Abgar.. I have translated it anew for the book I published (on all earliest Christian Gospels) with my colleague Zlatko Plese, called The Other Gospels. Here is what I say there about the letters (the one from Abgar to Jesus, then his response); at the end of the post I give my new translations of the two letters.
******************************************************************************************************
Jesus’ Correspondence with Abgar
The apocryphal correspondence between Jesus and Abgar Uchama (= “the Black”), king of Edessa in eastern Syria (4 BCE – 7 CE and 13-50 CE) is first mentioned in Eusebius (Church History, 1. 13. 5). Eusebius claims to have found the letters in the archives of Edessa and to have translated them literally from their original Syriac into Greek. The first is a short letter from the king, acknowledging Jesus’ miracle working powers and asking him to come to Edessa to heal him of his illness and, at the same time, to escape the animosity of the Jews in his homeland. In his reply, Jesus blesses Abgar for “believing without seeing” (an allusion to John 20:29), but informs the king that he cannot come because he needs to fulfill his mission, that is, by being crucified. After his ascension, however, he will send an apostle to heal the king.
This is the first instance of an apocryphal letter written in…
To see more about this intriguing issue, you will need to belong to the blog. If you don’t belong yet, now’s a good time to join. You get five posts a week, for very little expense. And every penny you pay goes to charity. So why not??
Did Eusebius and other early church leaders believe that the letter was authentic? Is the reason it was never included in the eventual canon because if it’s geographic locality, or for some other reason?
Eusebius claimed he found it in the archives of the church of Edessa; he never considered it as a part of the canon of Scripture because there was no tradition (by the time he was writing in the 4th century) of churches using it as an authoritative text — a major criterion for him.
If memory serves me correctly, Eusebius had a nose for forgeries and identified rejected works. How do you suppose he was convinced this one was genuine? It seems like quite an obvious forgery to me.
He had less of a nose for forgery than a nose for books that could not claim the right to be considered canonical scripture. For that a book needed to be widely used as an authoritative text from the beginning of the church throughout Christendom; if it wasn’t that, then it was probably not canonical and for that reason possibly not written by the alleged author.
So the story of the woman taken in adultery is considered apocryphal?
Yes indeed. I better post on that!
On a related note, what are your thoughts on the possibility of Jesus himself being literate? It seems very unlikely, based on what you’ve written regarding the area at the time. On the other hand, I’ve heard people argue that carpentry was a much higher status position than fisherman and that his family might have been able to afford to give him an education. Would people in the second half of the first century CE found it odd to hear stories of a carpenter reading from scrolls?
Several people have asked. I think maybe I need to post on this! (It’s a much debated issue.)
If Jesus was as familiar with the OT scriptures as he appears to be in the gospels, one would assume that he had been able to read them.
Yest, today that owuld be the case. But in antiquity, not so much. Many people “learned” the Scriptures by hearing them read and pondering their meaning.
I’ve often wondered this. Since Jesus is merely “quoted” in the canononical scripture, I always thought that the quotes from previous Old Testament and apocryphal writings were due to the author (scribe or otherwise) influence and agenda. Any research or scholarly articles on this subject?
I’m not sure which quotes you’re talking about. Do you mean the quotations of the OT to support things Jesus was “predicted” to do? Yes, tons of scholarshp on that. You might start with John Dominic Crossan’s book on Jesus’ passion.
Crossan has written that carpentry (like pottery) was in fact very low-status — on the threshold of starvation. The occupation of those too poor to even own a field to farm as a peasant.
Bart, what are your thoughts on the economic status of carpenters an potters (artisans), especially of the sort likely to work in tiny Nazareth?
I don’t think “artisan” is the right term for them, since for us that implies advanced training and high technical skills. Jesus would not have been making fine cabinetry but yokes and gates — rough stuff. I agree with Crossan: it was very low status and he was almost certainly impoverished.
Interesting.
I am an infrequent visitor and so tend to have a lot of reading to catch up on in your blog. I’ve been reading through your posts on the NT letters attributed to Peter. I get the argument that modern readers require some convincing that it is unlikely that Peter actually wrote the letters, since we bring the presupposition of universal literacy to the table. I’m not sure if I missed it somewhere, but what is the explanation for why people from the early 2nd or 3rd century weren’t more skeptical about the authorship of these letters from Peter? They must have known Peter’s basic biography and how unlikely it was that he was literate. Why would anyone believe it? I can understand it would be different for Jesus, who they believed was God. One would think it would be easier to convince people that a divine person wrote something, but that was rarely done. It makes no sense to me. What am I missing?
My hunch is that they were not as a rule highly critical thinkers (I don’t mean “critical” in a negative sense but in the sense of evaluating strengths of historical arguments) but like most people today, simply believed what they had heard, and probably thought that if God wanted to inspire someone like Peter, he certainly could have done so.
The most interesting thing is that even in this letter Jesus calls God as father.
“I must accomplish everything I was sent here to do, and after accomplishing them ascend to the One who sent me.”
It’s not hard to see why this didn’t make it into the established canon, in spite of its popularity in some quarters.
The writer didn’t even come close to Jesus’ style of self-expression, as established in the synoptics. It reads like professional correspondence. There is no sense of mysticism and enigma, Jesus’ penchant for allusion. This is the most prosaic businesslike rendition of Jesus I’ve ever encountered. “Mary Magdalalene, take a memo!”
While it would have been hard for early Christians to accept Jesus probably couldn’t write (as many can’t accept it now), there would have been widespread skepticism that if he had been able to write letters, there wouldn’t be surviving samples of his writing, treasured by his followers as holy relics.
Also, it’s not really purporting to be a document written by Jesus, but rather somebody writing about how he found such a document, and is now sharing the text with the world (without producing the originals). How seriously did even Eusebius expect this to be taken?
Also, why would both letters be in the archives? Wouldn’t Abgar’s letter have stayed with Jesus? So they had archives where they kept not only letters sent to the king, but also copies of the king’s correspondence that was being responded to, and this had all somehow survived and been kept in proper order for 300 years?
What did a 1st century filing cabinet look like, I wonder? Did they have manila folders then? Made of oxhide, no doubt.
Edessa – wasn’t it the supposed “resting” place of the Holy Shroud/ Veronica’s Veil now better known as the Shroud of Turin. I thought part of that legend had it too being hidden in the wall above the gate of the city?
I don’t know!
Not the Veronica, nor the Shroud of Turin, but it was the traditional home of the Mandylion, a cloth with the image of Jesus. Tradition was that he used the cloth to wipe his face and his image was transferred to it, and sent to Edessa with the letter. The Mandylion is first attested in the later 5th century, I believe, and it became a talisman in Constantinople until its sacking in 1204.
This fall, Bart, an ambitious young associate pastor set our men’s bible study to reading Eusebius. Jesus’ correspondence with Abgar, lol, caused quite a stir amongst the brethren!
Thanks, Bart! 🙂
Wow, what an assignment!
I had to look up Syriac (Wikipedia). It says that Syriac comprises 90% of Aramaic literature. Why then is everything referred to as Aramaic?
I found that Syriac language schools exist in Sweden (among other countries).
Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic, and was the more common written version of it (especially in Christian circles, since Christianity was successful in parts of Syria)
What about the letters to the seven churches of Revelation?
Ah, right! Of course he dictated those, rather htan penned them, but good point.
Bart
OT
It it’s nearing Christmas. Was reading Luke 1 ,2 . Possible to post more about Gabriel and role of angels in ancient times? Where did Gabriel “reside” and did the angels help give rise for the need for a place like heaven? Thanks
Interesting idea. Not sure I’d have much to say, but I’ll think about it!
Hi Dr Ehrman
please forgive this off topic question. if people began to think of jesus as God because he was resurrected why didnt they think of Lazarus long of Bethany as god?
thanx so much
Great questoin. Maybe I should post on it. Short answer: Lazarus was not “resurrected” to eternal life, but “resuscitated,” — brought back to earth to live longer before dying again.
But how would anyone know that Lazarus had not been resurrected unless/until he died again? Sticking with John’s Gospel, there was apparently nothing about Jesus’ appearance that necessitated the conclusion that he was resurrected; he was mistaken for the gardener (John 20:15). Why would Lazarus’ resurrection appearance be any different?
It’s because he was still present on earth as a living creature, unlike Jesus who was no where to be found because he had been taken up into heaven, that is, made immortal/divine.
Lazarus Long of Heinlein fame? 🙂
yes indeed. I snuck in an Easter egg with my question. I hope Dr. Ehrman doesnt mind.
Bart,
Have you heard the theory that carpenter is a mistranslation, and that Joseph’s occupation was something akin to a stone mason?
See today’s post. It’s not a “mis”translation but simply one of the possible ones. The word refers to someone who makes a living by working with his hands.
Off-topic question: On page 20 of *Jesus, Interrupted*, you say that “maybe sixteen or seventeen authors” wrote the New Testament. I tried to figure out which authors you mean, and I came up with a longer list:
1) Gospel of Mark
2) Q
3) M (material unique to Matthew)
4) L (material unique to Luke)
5) Gospel of John
6) Hebrews
7) Colossians
8) Ephesians
9) 1 Peter
10) 2 Peter
11) Jude
12) Paul (authentic Pauline epistles)
13) 2 Thess.
14) 1 Timothy
15) 2 Timothy
16) Titus
17) James
18) Revelation
19) 1,2 and 3 John (maybe these are separate authors)
Do you think that one person wrote the Pastoral Epistles? The books of 1, 2 and 3 John? What does your 16- or 17-author list look like?
I should add that I lumped the author of “L” in with Acts of the Apostles, though I don’t know if Luke wrote both.
My list does not give authors who produced the *sources* that were used by the NT writers, but the NT writers themselves. So not Q, M, and L, e.g., but Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Then Paul; authors (3) of Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians; author (1) of Pastorals. Authors (all different) of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation; author (just one, I suppose) of 1, 2, and 3 John. So that’s 16.